- . . 2|!» I'nuHfl . y .
h . ghfiu \.|\\\1, I ‘33 n) . .. . find...) , z
I -2. H I n I ‘0 r - {‘Qfifl‘l \I r[ .v\u14n\r\ t‘nl. H\Ilv lxn tvlul‘rtti .qu .H.

.n....hh\..1.W.mi :1 l .

ow .‘iuuul‘ ‘1 ggky‘f . v n
.. I lNhIIV. «run. «

.- guidihhw .1. 2... .. .

II. gfllmvuflfivn w;

a:

i

.3":

i

.t
b-

.1. I..- .
9‘ ‘1 In I
o. ‘Imflu I.“.|\.\| .1. l ‘ .
\l “altar... ‘lulflflliwz 2... . . r .
c t .

.flxnlh..l|lt\

'51 ':

afl

. ll .IK"
- u raluflfluuufl
9 .\ v y . . .
$3... , ‘ . s)..|\1\§n..h....? ”9%.. 1
. :0 ul' {I‘lluhvuflotiflwgbvl washfinhll «I Finnhttulqfll -
lll. - . flu. 1‘ fit. )M.1 WNW...“ I II .1.“

.
« 3.!)1

£1
it

. 1. V!
I ..
. . .1. w ? I .
n .1 . .6. 2 2 . . 3
V i . ‘nl l.¥ .
v n. I t. a. ‘ . I I 4
I i l I: n. '20 ‘l 0
. - . . . 1. . 1-» I n
c I .u . I .‘I’
.2 2...- 2 .3. D.
p . . ”NIH“?!
OIOV It. '
. ..u,.. ,-
vuy- . .
. y
2
.. . -

 

U i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\H\\\\\|\H\\111111111111111191511 11in \f

31 1293 0107

 

THESES 1

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
FROM INTEGRATION TO ALIENATION:
THE MEN IN JANE AUSTEN, CHARLOTTE BRONTE,
AND THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH NOVEL

presented by

Sharon Bannister

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Interdisciplinary
Program: The College of Arts and Letters

 

 

WW

7 Major piofek

Date 4/1'40 f3.

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

-

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FROM INTEGRATION TO ALIENATION:
THE MEN IN JANE AUSTEN, CHARLOTTE BRONTE,
AND THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH NOVEL

BY

Sharon Bannister

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Interdisciplinary Program: The College of Arts and Letters

1983

 

ABSTRACT
FROM INTEGRATION TO ALIENATION:

THE MEN IN JANE AUSTEN, CHARLOTTE BRONTE,
AND THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH NOVEL

BY

Sharon Bannister

Much research in social history, sociology, and
literary criticism exists which examines how men portray or
perceive women and how men are socialized or politicized into
their views of women. Reversing this research is the problem
of this study, which investigates the nineteenth-century
English literary and historical scene to show how and why
women novelists portrayed men in novels as they did. Then,
focus shifts to Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte. No full—
length analysis exists of the men in their novels. Also,they
created models of male literary characters which served as
reference points for the rest of the century.

The study is based on sources which deal with
nineteenth-century England, social history, and women. These
have been accompanied by critical works on the novel and
Austen's and Bronté's novels and letters. What Austen and
Bronté wrote about men appears in thirteen categories, such
as: men as husbands, men as teachers, men as suitors, men as

heroes, etc. The dissertation is arranged as: Introduction;

The Nineteenth-Century Literary and Historical Context; Jane
Austen: Integration; Charlotte Bronte: Alienation; Conclusion:
From Integration to Alienation.

The Conclusion reminds the reader of the links between
history, biography, and writing. The major findings are that
more comparisons between Austen's and Bronté's men appear
than might be thought. For example, women did not participate
in male culture and did not "know" men; neither author prob-
ably worked out sexual fantasies in the way men are accused
of doing; men were not uniformly teachers to women; and men
(except heroes) were portrayed as poor role models. Austen
and Bronté differed in how they portrayed men's relationships
to society, to women, and personal characters. Bronte created
men who were alienated from society as opposed to Austen
whose men were integrated into society's institutions.

Both women lived in eras of great changes. How they
treated whether women should take part in these changes and
the experiences of life affected the type of men created in
the novels. Finally, both women accepted a separateness
between men and women which is a "lesson" still being studied

in contemporary society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks goes to Maria Cruz-Lucio, who typed
all of the drafts and who takes such pride in a job that she
wanted this to look as good as I wanted it to look.

Libraries used in my research included the Bowling
Green State University Jerome Library (Bowling Green, Ohio),
the Findlay College Shafer Library (Findlay, Ohio), the
University of London Library (London, England), The Michigan
State University Library (East Lansing, Michigan), and the
Steele Memorial Public Library (Elmira, New York). In addi-
tion, I used the Bronte Parsonage Museum (Haworth, Yorkshire,
England).

My guidance committee also deserves thanks.

Dr. Donald Lammers, the Chairperson, gave me as much as I
needed of that special commodity, his time, and consistently
supported my efforts. Dr. Robert Anderson, Chairperson of
the Interdisciplinary Program, acted as my "ombudsperson"
throughout the years at MSU and resolved special problems.
Dr. Richard Benvenuto always allowed me and all of his other
students to express their opinions fully. Dr. Bo Anderson
pushed me intellectually and remained committed to the inter-

disciplinary nature of my program.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY LITERARY

AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
III. JANE AUSTEN: INTEGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
IV. CHARLOTTE BRONTE: ALIENATION . . . . . . . . . . 114

V. CONCLUSION: FROM INTEGRATION TO
ALIENATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 215

iii

I . INTRODUCTION

Nineteenth-century England is an especially rich era
for interdisciplinary studies, particularly the combination
of history, literature, and sociology. This dissertation
uses an interdisciplinary approach to provide the historical,
literary, and sociological framework within which to study
nineteenth-century women novelists and to focus on Jane
Austen's and Charlotte Bronté's images of men in their novels.
As creators of standards in novels in the first half of the
century, both Austen and Bronte produced models of literary
men which influenced subsequent authors and affected soci-
ety's views of men for the rest of the century.

Literature is intimately connected to historical
events, institutions, and the moral precepts of the day. As
Roland Barthes comments, "History underlies the fortunes of
modes of writing. . . . History . . . confronts the writer
with a necessary option between several moral attitudes con-
nected with language; it forces him to signify Literature in
terms of possibilities outside his control. . . . It is not
granted to the writer to choose his mode of writing from a
kind of non-temporal store of literary forms. It is under
the pressure of History and Tradition that the possible modes

of writing for a given writer are established. . . ."

2
(Barthes, 8, 22) In particular: "More than any other liter-

ary form, more perhaps than any other type of writing, the
novel serves as the model by which society conceives of
itself, the discourse in and through which it articulates the
world. . . . the basic convention which governs the novel

. . . is our expectation that the novel will produce a
world." (Culler, 189)

Sociology's functions to analyze society and groups
in society have more recently begun to be applied to ". . .
the study of the relations between the fictional and the real
worlds, in whatever period of time. . . . The sociology of
literature has its chief task before it: to make more pre-
cise. . . . the connections between fiction and history,
literature and life." (Berger, 213)

Thus, history provides the setting; it is the inter-
pretative matrix. In this case, it is the chronological
sweep from early nineteenth-century to late nineteenth-
century England. In this time period, England waxed and
began to wane as the world's predominant industrial, naval,
imperial, and parliamentary power. Within this historical
context, Austen and Bronte lived and created their characters
and images. Thus, their novels provide the formal subject
matter; they represent the application of the setting to a
particular arena. And, sociology provides the methodology
and concepts used to analyze the "connections between fiction
and history, literature and life." The methodology will not

be technical or statistical, but will be formal and organized.

 
 

 

‘

3
The content of the dissertation also reflects sociological

concerns in that it includes references to class and strat-
ification, the multiple roles of men in society, relations
between men and women, and institutions, such as education
and the family.1 Thus, this particular blend of history,
literature, and sociology expresses an approach to and a
philosophy of research which seeks to synthesize in an
orderly framework what are often seen as disparate elements
of academic specialization.

In relation to particular content, much research in
social history and literary criticism exists which examines
how men portray or perceive women and how men are socialized
or politicized into their views of women through institutions
such as the family, the school, and the church. In addition,
many works focus on women's views of themselves and their
place in society. In reversing this research, this study
focuses on women novelists' images of men in nineteenth—
century English novels with concentration on Austen and
Bronte.

The nineteenth-century English novel provides fertile
ground for the study of the social and economic position of
women, the relationships between women and men, and the por-

trayal of men. Nineteenth—century England witnessed great

 

1Social psychology, understood as a field which ana-
lyzes the behavior of the individual within society and the '
relation between the individual and society, is also a con-
cern here. However, I am going to consider it a derivative
from sociology, a hybrid of sociology and psychology, with
emphasis on sociology. .With this consideration in mind, I
will continue to refer to sociology only.

4

changes in politics, economics, and social institutions,
crucial movements concerning women such as changes in legal
status and the women's suffrage movement, and significant
developments in the writing of novels. Women novelists (as
well as male novelists) fashioned much of this into the sub-
ject matter of their novels.

A huge number of works exists on both nineteenth—
century English society as well as on the novel. One esti-
mate indicates that 40,000 novels were written in the Victo-
rian period alone (Showalter, 37). In fact, too much work
has already been done to be absorbed adequately by any one
researcher. Hence, part of the importance of this topic lies
in recasting or looking somewhat differently at a selected
number of primary and secondary sources. I will not be con-
cerned with how women wrote; that is, this will not be a
critique of writing as an art or a work of literary criticism.
I will not be concerned with how women acted as women; that
is, I will not be primarily investigating the presence or
lack of a women's literary tradition or the presence or lack
of women's political and social activity. I will not be too
concerned with women's images of themselves and men's images
of women except as these relate to how women portrayed men.

I will, instead, concentrate on what has already been inves-
tigated to a lesser extent and from other points of view as
mentioned above. I will focus on what two nineteenth-century

women novelists actually wrote about men in some of their

novels and letters.

5

In examining the women novelists, the following

questions will be considered:

1.

Why have Austen and Bronte been chosen for particular
emphasis?

What does the term "images" mean, and what types of
images of men are going to be examined?

In a period of rapid, deep, social, economic, and polit-
ical change, did women novelists' images of men change
from the early nineteenth century to the middle nine-
teenth century?

Internally, that is, within each writer's works, did
each author's images of men evolve during her career?
Did women's images of men in novels match what they
wrote about men in their letters; that is, how were, if
they were, women novelists constrained/ hampered/ influ-
enced by literary conventions and the fact that they
were female novelists?

Can the institutional influences on women as novelists
and as females in society be ascertained with any cer—
tainty; that is, can the effects of education, the
family, and the church be traced from the women's lives
in their creative works?

What contrasts and comparisons concerning images of men
can be made between Austen and Bronte?

How did Austen and Bronte present men; that is, what

social and economic classes appear and what is the

range of male activities and occupations that occurs in

 

n .

 

~-

~-

the novels?
9. Did Austen and Bronte "know" men; that is, did they
present complete representations or portraits of men?
10. What, if any, are the implications or lessons that
Austen's and Bronté's works have for contemporary soci-
ety?

The methodology to be used poses considerable chal-
lenges. There are a number of research areas opened up by
the subject matter and interdisciplinary nature of the
research which have been considered but which have been elim-
inated or reduced in emphasis in order to focus on a more
limited scene. For example, there are exciting possibilities
in investigating the roles that institutions such as the
family, education, and religion played in socializing women
during the nineteenth century and how much of a part institu-
tional didactics played in forming women's views of men as
expressed in their writings. Second, lower-class, middle-
class, and upper-class women may not have viewed men in the
same way due to differences in the upbringing, education,
economic standing, social status, and responsibilities of
both women and men in the nineteenth-century class structure.
Third, it would be valuable to know what cultural comparisons
of women's fictional images of men could be made between
England and other countries, such as France, during this
time. However, these three areas, among others, have been

relegated to the periphery of this work.

7

In addition to the number of research areas possible,
there is the challenge of the quantity of works available.

As mentioned earlier, one estimate places the number of novels
written in the nineteenth century at about 40,000. In
researching women novelists, I consulted one list of over 200
prominent literary women born in the nineteenth century
(Showalter, 320-50). Add to these the enormous number of
primary and secondary works written during and about
nineteenth-century England and its novels as well as numerous
periodicals published then and now which focus on the era,

and the resulting literature is impressive. Thus, resources
are available in huge quantities, but they are not of even
quality. For example, thousands of the novels have been lost,
have gone out of print, or are not relevant to this topic.

A third challenge is that certain women novelists
dominated the nineteenth century, such as Jane Austen, the
Brontés, and George Eliot. Two problems emerge related to
these authors. First, any research dealing with nineteenth-
century novels should not exclude these novelists. However,
the prominence of these women Often obscured lesser-known
contemporary female novelists whose life and works were also
important for women's fictional images of men. In many
instances, even though novelists contemporary with the famed
women are no longer read as much, they achieved status as
"best-sellers" of the time. In addition, many of these
novelists' works showed clearly an awareness of public

interests of the time, which included the roles of women,

 

‘.. n.
‘00. N
-;V:

"H" ‘

II-I‘V‘
..

o

,...-‘v

....q -

. ,.
"m u‘.

‘a-v
.. .3
—_.vo—

-. .. ,.
~b‘ .
.
an- '
4...“ I

 

u..v

vuu.‘
A.

n.
. ‘3

\- \

 

v”

.
'~\
~

In“
4"

'

 

8
relationships between women and men, and the images of men.
However, even though many Of the lesser-known women novelists
will be mentioned in the survey of the nineteenth-century
literary scene, no detailed examination of these women occurs.
George Eliot will receive treatment in the survey, but for
certain reasons, she, too, will not be treated in detail.

A fourth challenge concerns the class bias which is
inherent in the research. Most women who wrote were reason-
ably well-educated, although usually at home. They also came
from primarily aristocratic, professional, or middle-class
families, and they generally wrote about middle-class and
upper-class families. The working class did emerge as an
object of concern (for example with George Eliot and Eliz-
abeth Gaskell) as the century progressed. This subject might
have emerged because women participated more in society as
time went on or because the working classes became a general
topic of social and political attention for male and female
novelists as well as for politicians. Basically, however,
the women writers exhibited rather homogeneous class char-
acteristics which makes it difficult to determine whether
women from different classes viewed men differently and how,
if at all, these views evolved in the nineteenth century.

With these challenges in mind, the methodology to be
used involves the following steps. I have examined a number
of standard sources which deal with nineteenth-century
England in general, nineteenth-century English social history,

and nineteenth-century English women. These have been

.. a... u. ..H ..

 

9

accompanied by a number of critical works on the nineteenth-
century English novel. This reading reveals that a few women
novelists in the century achieved and still maintain enormous
status while many more, perhaps hundreds, gained contemporary
notice, but they have faded into lesser or no significance.
Of course, the major women novelists were Jane Austen, the
Brontés, and George Eliot. A curious phenomenon occurred in
the period from about 1860 to early in the twentieth century.
No female novelist achieved the lasting stature of the above
women. A great gulf existed between Eliot and Virginia Woolf.
A number of women novelists did earn popularity during this
period. They included a group born between 1840 and 1860,
such as Olive Schreiner, Florence Dixie, Baroness Orczy,
Sarah Grand, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and Mary Kingsley, and a
group born after 1860, including Mary Coleridge, Ethel Voy-
nich, Beatrix Potter, Pearl Craigie, and, finally, Virginia
Woolf.

For this study, an overview of the nineteenth-century
historical and literary scene will be given to provide per-
spective and to show developments. But, attention will then
turn to Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronté in the first half of
the century. This is for three major reasons. First, it is
more economical and efficient to compare and contrast two
writers than to try to encompass several authors. Second,
both Austen and Bronte set standards and created models of

novels, and of men in the novels, which persisted and acted

as reference points for authors and society for the remainder

 

L

 

“in

 

 

 

10

of the century. Third, neither Austen nor Bronte was married

while each wrote professionally. Although this could not be

proven, their images of men would probably have altered once

they married. Thus, using just these two authors acts as a

"control" on the examination of their images of men. George

Eliot, for example, accomplished her major writing after she

began her liaison with George Lewes.

Other considerations relating to Austen and Bronte
used as selection criteria were that they achieved popularity

in their own time, wrote novels intended for adults, and

reflected currents of the time. Each of them wrote at least

three novels which reflected their development from early to
late career, explored in depth women's roles and relation—
ships between men and women, and viewed men in multiple roles.
Additionally, although much has been written about these two

authors, there has not been any full-length analysis of the

meul in their novels. This has led to certain generalizations

31nd assumptions about their male characters, which after

deeper study, may need to be modified. Finally, besides

tkueir novels, their letters and biographies provide further

reEferences for studying how their lives related to the images

of men in the novels.

From the fictional writings, a variety of portrayals
(Di? men appeared. The number of roles men played in the

I‘i-neteenth-century novel was in itself significant. To organ-

ize the study of these roles, I used a systematic method

‘Which arranged what Austen and Bronte wrote about men into

 

 

11

the following categories: (1) women's views of relationships

with men in general, (2) views of marriage in general,

(3) men and occupation; men as employers, (4) men and polit-

ical power/social status, (5) men and culture: providers of

moral norms, carriers of intellectual life, (6) men as

suitors or lovers, (7) men as husbands, (8) men as fathers,

brothers, uncles, (9) men as friends, (10) men as teachers,

(11) men as heroes; ideal men, (12) men as controlled or

manipulated by women: dependency, (13) men as active, in the

outside world, unrestrained contrasted to women as passive,

in the home, restrained. Along with these topic categories,

I catalogued (a) when the author made an authorial comment

about the image, (b) when a male or female character spoke

about the image, and (c) whether the comment or passage indi-
cated a positive or negative attitude towards the image.

TFhese categories encompass the variety of social, political,
aIui economic roles which men played in society and the novel

31nd also indicate the way in which the authors artistically

Cfnose to create these various images of men. The dominance

(31‘ the lack of emphasis on certain images should reveal

‘3}Langes in the subject matter of the novels and changes in

‘tlme images of men. Both subject matter and images of men, in

t1lrn, reflected contemporary societal issues.

The methodological approach dictates the organization

C>35 the dissertation. Following this introductory chapter (I)

CH1 the importance of the research, questions to be examined,

methodology and resources, and tentative conclusions will be

12

a chapter (II) which provides a brief survey of some of the
nineteenth-century institutional and literary influences on
authors, the impact of literary conventions, the problems of
women authors writing as women, and an overview of women
novelists' images of men in their works. Chapters III and IV
will examine Austen's and Bronté's lives and novels in detail.
Internally, Chapters III and IV will proceed chronologically
with the women's lives first and then the novels in the order
in which they were written. The analysis of the novels will
generally follow the order of the thirteen categories listed
above. Chapter V will conclude the study of the nineteenth-
century literary and historical scene and how Austen and
Bronte viewed men in their writings.
This examination will show that, during the nine-
‘teenth century some authors in early nineteenth-century
lflngland imagined men and men's roles as necessary, benevolent,
Bani paternal. Women in the novels generally accepted these
'rtDles as they generally accepted their own roles in relation
13C) men. In the middle to late nineteenth century, the images
C>f5 men evolved as more restrictive, burdensome, and tyran-
nical. Women in the novels began to question the traditional
“niiile images. By the late nineteenth century, some began to
ITeaj'ect the traditional male images and their own traditional
1Images in relation to men. Internally, however, within
‘PXllsten's and Bronté's works, they reflected a development
V'llich showed less uncritical acceptance of the male roles as

tllle women's careers progressed. Thus, there was not an

J.. ac
.~ '
.‘4ai'
.. .. b
n' 4 H
v...-

1"“,

up.

 

‘v ‘R‘

‘I ~~A-

.. 9,

1....“ .

 

Iv..-

'4
‘..

a..‘:

~a_‘

"~U.
o

 

 

.
kHS

‘
-._‘:

13
absolute or uniform progression in images of men from the

early to the late nineteenth century. In addition, what

fictional women thought about men Often reflected what they

thought about themselves and their roles.

Also, the literary critics examined in this study

were more impressionistic than systematic. In many instances,

these works selected a variety of nineteenth-century authors,
both women and men, without any particularly obvious scheme

or goal. For all of the research in the past two decades

on women, and how women were portrayed, there is little

extensive research on male characters or how men were seen
imaginatively. Thus, this study is significant for socio-
logical and literary concerns within an historical context.

Finally, despite the difficulty of directly linking
.influences on women to what they wrote, the necessity to
("amply with literary conventions, and the restrictions placed
‘DII authors who were female, there was a genuine reflection in
‘tlmese novels and writings of the evolution of society's views

The novel, therefore, is a valid source

of men (and women).

‘“thich.serves as one indicator of society and its values.
What will occur here, then, is the use of the insights and
Inethods of historians and sociologists along with standard
t:-€3<::hniques of literary analysis to evaluate women's assess-

nnfierus.of men in the imagined worlds of the novelists.

—
h ouvuv

u...
"ll ’—

w-v-vu.

- ..-.._
.-

"nun...

w: .
o g V
‘D‘; . .

“‘l!v .

""IV«...

 

'. ‘ s.
a _ “
.“‘ V‘.
., . .I
.~ _ .
u..." “
.

. ‘ .

.‘w ‘
Ni “

 

 

-.

u.

 

 

II. THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY LITERARY

AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

A number of historical, institutional, and literary

influences confronted English women authors throughout the

runeteenth century. For women novelists, these influences

lflended and affected them in a variety of ways. As women,

the force of historical tradition and the operation of soci-
etal institutions subordinated them legally, socially, and

economically to the men in their lives: employers, fathers,

brothers, uncles, or husbands. As authors, they faced tra-

<1itional and contemporary literary standards which guided

n'lale as well as female writers. As female novelists, they

experienced a particular combination of familial, educational,
iarnfl literary guidelines and restrictions which all at once
challenged, aided, thwarted, and puzzled them throughout the

The extent to which these influences can be traced

<3€Eritury.
jfirl their writings and particularly in their images of men is
<1<Eloatable. Nonetheless, it is enlightening and necessary to

c=C>nsider the variety of life's experiences which swirled

Ellrcnmd the women novelists.
Women's status in England changed gradually, if

1'léiltingly, throughout the nineteenth century. Major legal

C=<Jncerns of women revolved around their relations to property,

14

¥

‘ V V

 

IF‘
r".

v

u- ”-
.
-fl.

a
"'.4~
pul""‘
' U
‘, ”A?"
',.J

C!V‘
‘ it

.
.< 0“

‘_ V“

..J

 

'..’a r-

,_...-- b
.

 

.44. v u

0.5' a
_ a
5.1.. u

"
)I‘V:

‘Uiuv. .

 

{-y-~.
.

5‘...A ~

 

V"'Y~
“ V.‘

 

"
1“:

.;.,_
\

"v..

 

15

to their children, and to their husbands. Women grew
increasingly concerned over access to education, conditions
of work, and voting privileges. The first bill introduced
in Parliament to allow married women to own property in their
own right passed in 1856. Eventually, the Married Women's
Property Act passed in 1870, with subsequent amendments in
1874 and 1882. An Infants' Custody Act of 1839 gave the
Court of Chancery power to award mothers custody of children
under age seven when husband and wife separated. Previously,
fathers and the law considered children their property. The
Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 permitted women to divorce
their husbands on grounds of cruelty, desertion, bestiality,
or rape, and an act of 1878 established that women who sep—
arated from their husbands because of assault could claim
isupport. Not until 1923, however, could women obtain a
Clivorce on grounds of their husbands' adultery, although men
had been able to divorce their wives on that basis for many
Years. (Calder, 120, 165, 181, 213-15; Stubbs, 4, 53, 60;
Basch, 16—25) .

Queens and Bedford Colleges for Women (1848), Chel-
tenham Ladies College (1853) , Girton (1869) , and Newnham
c3C>1lege (1871) reflected the beginnings of formal higher
Ei'flucation for women. A woman attempted to register as a
nn£ECHcal student as early as 1856, but no woman won this
Ei<indssion until 1877. The Governesses Benevolent Association,
k)egun in 1843, concentrated on supporting women in what had

k3<icome a traditional middle-class occupation. One proof of

IIIIIIII-____

 

b-IU

I!
V

“x,”

;;-- g
’40.

0..
4..

' u a
V-..- I

 

(”II

_-o.

.
‘10-1

.
on Iv“

u... ....
. .-

nv-vv

 

4....‘i
- _‘
n.o...'~

 

“Q'.'

A.."..

 

 

In.

‘v-

.
“.~“

“n...

 

 

 

 

16

women moving out into a wider world came in 1870, when
female clerks entered the Post Office for the first time.
Although the first organized attempts to gain the franchise
began in the 1860's, the local franchise was not granted
until 1882, and the national franchise with limitations
waited until World War I (Stubbs, 4, 53, 60).

Clearly, women were engaged in a great contest with

society. Although many women chose to stay out of this
struggle, it proved difficult for all but most isolated
women not to be affected by the legal, social, and economic
changes applying to them. One of the most interesting legal
battles took place on the field of prostitution, an activity
which "proper" women should not and need not know anything
(about, since its activities took place beyond the boundaries
(Df the hallowed home and marriage. However, the long cam-
Enaign (1864-84) waged against the Contagious Diseases Acts,
Wl'lich allowed the police to detain, arrest, and physically
eMamine women suspected of being prostitutes, resulted in a
Public awareness of many aspects of the legal, social, and
I3C>litical dominance of men over women.

The extent to which the women novelists were aware

C313, participated in, criticized, or condoned all Of these
Iléagmenings varied considerably from Jane Austen's real and
Eictional worlds, which existed prior to most of this ferment,
t1<3 the Brontés' real and fictional worlds of mid-century

§r<3rkshire industrial awakenings.

 

up. . y
u

n
.1.
~v.

.
~r-n
‘ d
.u H,

1

u’.‘ ‘
n

~n._“

 

..._‘_

o... n,“

"a,
.4

"Iu,_

 

l7

Throughout the century, debate often occurred con-

cerning how women should take part in the experiences of

Generally, men and women agreed that women's
In many instances,

life.

strongest bonds were with home and family.

51 woman's bonds to father, brothers, and uncles remained

artronger than the tie to her husband. As economic conditions

clianged, however, women's secure family ties were threatened.

I‘Dwer-class women had always worked; upper-class women had no

eusonomic need to work; middle—class women were not supposed
tn: work (the employment of servants marked persons as middle

c11ass). But contemporary Observers noted the situation that

nriddle-class women, the group from which great numbers of
Ifennale novelists came, worked in increasing numbers out of

Ilencessity. Harriet Martineau, a popular economic writer in

tdlez 1850's and 1860's, remarked that from the 1820's to the

1860's,

. . . the girlhood of the upper middle class has gone
through an experience of permanent historical importance
When the war was over . . . when the currency was

in the most critical condition, and the old poor-law was
as a gangrene . . . the lot of increasing numbers of

middle-class women became appalling. After the suspense
and crash of 1825-6 . . . their fathers or husbands

ruined, their brothers . . . destitute. . . . women did

anything that they could devise to escape the workhouse.
bqiilftineau went on to calculate that over two million English
‘VSDDmen worked in the 1860's (out of a population of about ten

n“illion women in 1861), many thousands of them single

(bqétrtineau, "Middle-Class Education in England--Girls", 553-

54: B. R. Mitchell, 6).

18

Middle-class women were not equipped educationally,
however, for the challenge of work. Whereas boys expected
to play and then to be sent off to study, girls expected to
play, learn the domestic arts, and occasionally be sent to
kxaarding schools of often questionable goals and quality.
Duartineau felt that girls should not neglect household skills,

but in what else they studied there was no tradition, as with

boys studying Latin and Greek. This course of study did not

give boys a practical foundation for work or participation
in public life, but it did give them a conunon experience on

which to build male and group identity and long-cherished

traditions. In Martineau's Opinion, ". . . the way in which

girls generally spend their time from seven years Old to
twenty is so desperately unfavourable to mind and char-

aCter. . . ." (Martineau, 549, 564-65; see also, Martineau,

"Middle-Class Education in England--Boys," 409-26)

The quality of education for girls who did go to

boarding school became a major concern (and Of course was

 

translated into fictional form in such novels as Jane Eyre).

An article of 1845, predating Jane Eyre by two years, attacked
tl‘le moral atmosphere (what actually happened that m so
morally bad is not made clear), the physical conditions (lack
of privacy, bad food, health hazards), and the poor instruc-
tion (reason and logic, the lack of which were deemed to be
1:I‘Le weakest parts of women's minds, were not taught). Basi-
cally the conclusion was that ". . . woman, in her lowest and

most destitute estate, was made for home." ("Enquiry into

.p’

a"

M'-
.1

..O1

u. '-

 

 

 

y
d

H

r.“ .4

.‘ ~c
‘\

”‘v

:
‘I‘
II'

19
State of Girls' Fashionable Schools," 710, 704-7, 709)

The majority of women, regardless of class, did not
go to school at all but were educated in varying degrees at
home. By mid-century, numerous articles appeared on the
\nalue of this type of education or lack of it. The English-

RKDman's Journal printed an 1858 article which wove together

 

tlie concerns that not only were women (in this case, middle-
czlass women) poorly educated, but that the gap between men
and women widened as they grew older as a result of the dif-

ferent experiences:

Carefully separated from infancy upwards, subjected to
different modes of training, involving different inter-
ests and pursuits, the boy returns from school or
college, a 'marvel and a mystery' to his sisters, . . .
the boy goes forth into the world. . . . where the char-
acter forms and strengthens, and, it must be confessed,
too often hardens from the very absence of legitimate
female sympathy and influence, while the girl dwells at
home killing time and her own best self in the perusal
of novels. . . ./etc. _7 The education and conduct of a
young woman come unconsciously to be guided with a View
/towards marriage as the only alternative7. . . . she
is brought to barter soul and body for money and

rank. . . . by the consciousness of dependence on mar-
riage for the means of subsistence. . . . ("Female—
Education in the Middle Classes," 225-26)

 

This emphasis on women's orientation to domestic
1—5.fe--whether educated at home or at boarding school--became
C>rme of the major themes in nineteenth-century non-fiction and
fiCtion written by both men and women. Opinion tended to
conelude that women should be educated to serve men.
Iklthough some voices rejected this philosophy (as indicated
h33’ the article above), influential works of the middle and

late nineteenth century supported this view. For example,

'_ ~r-
'4
9

.u

 

_.,.VI
. v

.a..-

 

< n—a

n...“

 

-
-,. o

i
(I'

~‘..

-.-.

 

~~..

'~n ..

0‘. .-
n

o.-_‘

 

 

 

 

 

w
‘-
u_ 4
.4
~
~"~
. a
un‘
~.
~.
'~
‘\ ..

20
Sarah Stickney Ellis in the Daughters of England (1842) felt

that knowledge acquired by women should encourage the worship

Of God and make them a better companion to men. John Ruskin's

panegyric to woman's subordinate place in the universe, "Of

Queen's Gardens" (in Sesame and Lilies) taught that women

must not aim at "self-development" but "self-renunciation,"
along with the ability to help and understand men as they

went about their important tasks (in Basch, 5) .

Women authors throughout the century found them-

selves in a particularly difficult position. Caught between

the creative desire and often the economic necessity to

write and the insistent tug of home orientation, they tried

to reconcile professional and domestic roles. In an excel-

lent, thorough study of female writers of the nineteenth

Century, Elaine Showalter (A Literature of Their Own)

traces this conflict between these roles. Many female

novelists took their domestic responsibilities seriously

and up to about the 1880's, they made sincere attempts to

integrate their personal and professional lives. Many of

these women lost their mothers at a young age, which often
meant that they cared for their fathers for many years, that
their fathers supervised their education even more closely,

and that the women identified (positively and negatively)

with their fathers' roles. Authors who lost their mothers

at a young age included George Eliot, the Brontés, Geraldine

Jestury, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Elizabeth Gaskell, and

Eliza Lynn Linton (Showalter, 61, 62-64). In many instances,

 

L."-

.4...

 

“.vn

.u. ~

-g-u

....-

 

M-I-‘

n-.>'

u...

u'.-

-u.A

 

V...

-
~."

 

 

 

21
this loss of a mother could be traced into the works in the
form of weak, ineffectual mother figures, alienated children,

or absent mothers. Equally, however, weak, ineffectual, or

absent fathers also appeared.

Many women writers encountered "male hostility,

jealously, and resistance within the family" when they

attempted to write (Showalter, 57) . In order to deal with

resistance, the women adopted a number of tactics which
included outward submission within the family while pursuing

their interests in secret. Covert pursuit of writing ranged

from writing late at night or early in the morning to dealing

with publishers without the family's knowledge. The ultimate

Ploy was the use of a male pseudonym which protected the
Writer from her family and also from male literary critics.
Some women did not keep the profits from their books; Char-
lotte Yonge gave hers to the church for many years and Eliz-
abeth Gaskell gave hers to her husband, although she traveled
and made use of her money freely (Showalter, 57; Masefield,

167, 168) . Some critics believe that many literary women

expressed anger at this dependent position and diverted their

" feminine outrage . . . to non-feminist causes." (Moers, 24)

For example, Elizabeth Gaskell concentrated on factory con-

ditions, Harriet Martineau on economic analyses, and Char-

lo‘tte Yonge on religious causes. Ellen Moers uses women's

noh-fiction writings such as those of Mrs. Gaskell and
Hall‘riet Beecher Stowe to reflect their "rage" at the problems

of combining the duties of home, writing, wife and mother

22
(Moers, 4, 18—26).
Whether angry or not, women writers did face dif-

ficult career decisions, especially early in the century.

The first generation of women writers (Jane Austen was a
rustable exception) usually began their careers after age
‘trflxty. They had to overcome educational disabilities (nearly
2111 were self-taught),as well as to solve financial diffi-
crulties and battle within the family in order to write.

£3cme women, such as Charlotte Bronte, sincerely tried to
(Jvercome a wish to write. When women did write, they faced
1:he problem of trying to meet the educational standards of
iihe men and were severely criticized for errors in scholar-
Ship. Some women perpetuated the idea of female ignorance
133' pretending that their knowledge came from men. Auto-
kbixographical writings of women indicated the tremendous self-
Cij_scipline involved in learning and writing by themselves
Cbxrer periods of many years (Showalter, 42-43, 53, 55-56).

These educational disadvantages can be statistically

Esriown in studies done by Richard Altick ("The Sociology of
Zkllthorship," Bulletin of New York Public Library, LXVI, 1962)
Eilld Raymond Williams (The Long Revolution), 1961). Williams'
E31:.‘udy shows that of 163 major writers from 1780-1930, over
half of the men in each fifty-year period attended Oxford
<31? Cambridge; by 1870-1900, 70% of literary men attended a
urliversity. Of the literary women, about 20% in the whole
Period 1780-1930 went to a university; in the period 1900-

1935, about 38% of female writers gained a university

.~‘

r
'.o-“

_. .-
.- v.1
nu...

1‘

"a"

1"

L...

.p.- ,4

 

 

‘5-
‘4'3‘

“
, ~u.

1"

v.

 

 

‘1.

l.

p
h

 

 

   

 

23

education. Showalter's conclusion is that "women writers

were deprived of education because of their sex, not because

of their class." (Showalter, 40-41, which includes refer-

ences to the two studies mentioned above) At home, women

were often excluded from intellectual activity, even from

their basic source of information--reading. Mrs. Gaskell

remarked, "With a struggle and a fight I can see all

till then

Quarterlies 3 months after they are published .

they lie on the Portico table for gentlemen to see. I think

I will go in for Women's Rights." (quoted in Moers, 82) As

a Victorian woman, Mrs. Gaskell reflected the general status

Of women who were "deep-bonneted, full skirted . . . women

housebound and chaperoned--women sent away from table after

dinner when men talked masculine matters--women denied

access to industry and commerce." (Moers, 82) Mrs. Gaskell's

remarks rang particularly poignant because, as a Manchester

minister's wife, she experienced a wider or different world

then many, such as Austen and the Brontés.

Besides being generally denied the educational

advantages of boys, nineteenth-century girls also were reined

in physically at a certain point. Cumbersome clothing and

prOhibitions on activities such as running, climbing,

turnbling, and even walking, generally accompanied girls'

entrance into adulthood. However, it is amazing the great

distances women and men walked, as indicated by most authors'

writings. In the novels, girls progressed through a phase of

yOuthful, active, tomboy-like activity, such as that of Maggie

 

 

 

 

24

in Mill On The Floss, Jane in Jane Eyre, and Cathy in

 

 

Wuthering Heights, before they were forcefully or gradually

 

"tamed." Adulthood sometimes brought a reminder of the
emphasis on women's appearance as a paramount concern. As
a child, a girl could win approval for performance physically
or intellectually. As an adult, a woman's world shrunk
appreciably when she could no longer count on physical or
intellectual activity to win approval:
And what of the writer who is gifted and plain. . . .
I would guess that the onset of adolescence brings a
shock of a specially female kind, for then such a girl
discovers that the . . . admiration . . . for perform—
ance, is now withdrawn from her plainness and given
instead, by inexorable right, to the beauty. Beauty
alone draws the eyes of the world, is the grim lesson
of female maturity. (Moers, 198-99)

Whether one agrees with this View or not, nineteenth-
century women writers did face a host of institutional chal-
lenges including conflicts over their role within the family,
struggles to become authors, attempts to obtain an education,
and restrictions on their activities because they were women.
These challenges fail to include the influence of a religious
life. For example, some of the female writers were daughters
Of clergymen (such as Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Eliz-
abeth Gaskell), married to clergymen (Gaskell, again), or
Considered a spokesperson of the Church (Charlotte Yonge).
Many writers did not descend from the church or marry into it
(Maria Edgeworth, George Eliot), but it was difficult to

SStray too far away from considering religious concerns in the

Ilineteenth century. Proponents and opponents of various

[gs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

views, from Tractarian to Dissenting, were extremely vocif-
erous throughout the century, and female authors, no less
than male authors, often incorporated these views into their
works by devices ranging from the portrayal of a silly
clergyman (in Pride and Prejudice) to a cruel one (in Jane
Eyre) to an heroic one (in Ruth) to the exemplary High Church

beliefs (in The Heir of Redclyffe).

 

The historical milieu and the particular institu-
tional background of each female author can sometimes be
assessed for each author. A strong argument can be made that
traces the impact of historical and institutional circum-
stances directly into each author's novels (such as Gaskell's
industrial novels or Charlotte Bronté's novels). An equally
valid case can be made which shows that in many novels, very
little presence of history or immediate institutional circum-
stances intruded(such as Jane Austen's novels or Emily
Bronté's work). Difficulty exists in making that slippery
cause-and-effect link between the author's surroundings and
her works. Nonetheless, this background should be kept in
mind as part of the network which affected these women's
Views of men.

An equally significant consideration concerns the
literary arena within which the women worked. Literary
‘tradition and women writers influenced female authors in
”Varying intensity. For example,

In the case of some women writers, Austen preeminent

among them, women's literature has been their major
tradition; in the case of others . . . it has mattered

26
hardly at all: here Emily Bronté's name comes to mind.
In the case of most women writers, women's traditions
have been fringe benefits superadded upon the literary
associations of period, nation, and class that they
have shared with their male contemporaries. (Moers,
45)

Mme de Genlis, a popular writer, educator, and
teacher of French royal family members in the eighteenth
century, wrote "courtesy books," or stories intended for
moral or educational purposes. In Jane Austen's Emma,

Adele et Théodore (1782) appeared in translation, and in her

 

letters, she noted reading Les Veillées du Chateau (1784) in

 

French. These two most important of Mme de Genlis'books
represented a very small number in a pantheon of moral and
pedagogical tales written for a widening audience in the
eighteenth century. For three-fourths of the eighteenth
century, men wrote most of this type of work; Dr. James

Fordyce's Sermons for Young Women, for example, were still

 

read in Pride and Prejudice. In the last quarter of the

 

eighteenth century, however, more women began to write these
"courtesy books," whose object was the education of girls,
and which played a part in the evolution of the marriage of
manners and morals in Fanny Burney and Jane Austen (Moers,
220, 227).

While Austen's contemporaries Coleridge, Wordsworth,
and Southey met each other at the university, she met a host
Ofnow forgotten female authors at home. Sarah Harriet
finney, Jane West, Anna Maria Porter, Anne Grant, Elizabeth

ffiamilton, Laetitia Matilda Hawkins, Helen Maria Williams,

27

and Mary Brunton (whose Self Control in 1810 influenced the

 

rewriting of Sense and Sensibility) have disappeared in

 

Obscurity, but they peopled Jane Austen's letters as "liter-
ary roommates" and "undergraduate fellows" who provided a
rainbow of excellent, good, fair, bad, and terrible writing
for her (Moers, 44).

Fanny Burney, both a predecessor and a contemporary
Of Austen, paved the way for the novel of life and manners.
Burney moved away from the eighteenth-century male-dominated
novel, which often featured coarse humor as a necessary
ingredient. Jane Austen read her novels, contributed to the
subscription publication of Camilla, read Evelina aloud to
the family at Steventon, and probably lifted the title of
Pride and Prejudice from a phrase mentioned in the last
chapter of Cecelia (Moers, 71; Masefield, 23, 34).

Madame de Staél struck the imagination of numerous
female writers, especially in her novel, Corinne (1807),
which explored the myth of the famous woman who talks, writes,
and performs for the benefit of the world's applause. Jane
Austen, Fanny Burney, Maria Edgeworth, Jane Welsh (Carlyle),
Elizabeth Barrett(Browning), George Sand, Harriet Beecher
Stowe, and Charlotte Bronte either read it, wrote about it,
Cu'were urged to read it or write about it. Dinah Craik of

Euiot's Adam Bede is supposed to be a direct descendant of

 

the Corinne character (although Corinne is an opera singer

and Dinah is a preacher ) (Moers, 173-78, 192, 207).

 

28

Just as interesting an investigation lies in tracing
the literary influences Of these early nineteenth-century
writers on the next generation. George Eliot provided an
intriguing example of the difficulty of determining literary
influences. Eliot, as well as others of her generation, no
doubt read Burney, Maria Edgeworth, Ann Radcliffe, and Austen.
And many of the themes from "mysterious interiors of Gothic
romance to the balancing of duty and self-fulfillment in
domestic fiction can be traced to the late eighteenth
century." But not much direct effect of these authors can
he found in Eliot (or in Elizabeth Gaskell, Harriet Martineau,
or the Brontés).

In some ways, Austen acted as a negative influence.
Eliot's confidant and mentor, George Lewes, persuaded her to
read all of Austen's fiction which Lewes felt best repre-
sented the art of "dramatic presentation," a quality Lewes
judged Eliot lacked. From Eliot's letters, however, it seems
clear that Austen did not impress her very much; but in a way,
Eliot might have gained a certain resolution from Austen to
write from a different perspective. Eliot portrayed carpen—
ters, dairymaids, and farmers as central characters. In
effect, she turned the novel inside out by making central
Characters out of those on the edge of Austen's novels, while
relegating to the fringes characters who were central in
<Austen: "What George Eliot found in Jane Austen was a garden
to break out of, a gate to push Open, a doorway to enter."

'Ihis is how Charlotte Bronte also reacted to Austen when she

 

—====m__

29

wrote, "I should hardly like to live with her ladies and
gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses!" (quoted
in Moers, 49; also Moers, 45-49, 51-52).

Others who might have influenced Eliot included two
authors as diverse as George Sand and Harriet Beecher Stowe.
Although it is possible, from Eliot's letters, to determine
some of Sand's books Eliot read, there was no direct evidence
of influence except mention of a debt of gratitude to the
ETench author and a traceable lineage from George Sand's
idealization of the French peasant to the character of the
rmble carpenter Adam Bede (Moers, 35, 52).

Although they never met, Eliot and Stowe corresponded
vfith each other. In a letter to Stowe, Eliot indicated that
she considered Stowe a model in ". . . the great feminine
enterprise of rousing the imagination 'to a vision of human
claims' in races, sects, and classes different from the
established norm . . . George Eliot was Mrs. Stowe's most
important disciple among later women writers of the epic
age." (Moers, 39) Eliot once wrote to a friend inquiring
"'Why can we not have . . . pictures of religious life among
the industrial classes in England, as interesting as Mrs.
Stowe's pictures of religious life among the negroes?‘ In
embryo, the subject of Adam Bede was here suggested" (Quoted
inMoers, 47).

Despite these associations with a variety of female
EiuthorS, ascertaining literary influences on Eliot is not

‘that clear-cut. For example, she read Balzac at the start of

——a__——

 

 

30

her career and considered him quite the most wonderful writer.
Eliot read so widely (she was well-educated before she met
George Lewes) that, "The question of specific influences is

a difficult one in considering a writer like George Eliot
whose reading in the novel, as in most other fields of liter-
ature, was so extensive." (C. T. Bissell, "Social Analysis
in the Novels of George Eliot," 233) Eliot never identified
with any social group or one class for any length of time.
Particularly after her liaison with Lewes, she stayed apart
by Choice and necessity. Even though her fame eventually
obviated this isolation, she wrote all of her novels after
she met Lewes,and much of her writing occurred during a
period when she stayed apart from "society."

Thus,perhaps Lewes played the role of the greatest
proximate literary influence. At least one analyst feels
that there is a certain objectivity and detachment in Eliot's
novels due to this lack of a class point of view, although
this did not prevent Eliot from cutting a wide, deep swath
through society in her novels (Bissell, 226-27).

Eliot's self-provided education, her acquaintance
with both female and male literary traditions, her relation-
ship with Lewes, her long social ostracism, and her apparent
lack of class point of view again point out the complexity
Cf deciding exactly what literary influences most affected
an author. Just as great care is needed in assuming a
"reductionist notion of reflection" (Stubbs, 54) in regard

'to the connection between what happened in society and what

 

—

 

31

writers wrote, so caution is also needed in making connec-
tions between what other artists wrote and what contempo—
raries or descendents created. However, legitimate connec-
tions can be made which show literary influences on authors
and the effects of historical and institutional surroundings.
With an author, however, the creative element cannot be
forgotten, and in the end, it is the unique mix of literary,
institutional, and historical elements with the creative
imagination which is determining:

Because of the posthumous publication. . . . of the

Brontés' private fantasies . . . we know the source

of Rochester and Heathcliff. These Bronte legends

of Gondal and Angria are unique in literary history

. . . because they were family fantasies . . . developed

from early childhood to advanced adulthood, and written

down in miniature imitations of the magazine literature

of the day. . . . We know . . . that all the Bronte

virgins . . . lived with brute passion, committed

adultery and incest, bore illegitimate children, moldered

in dungeons, murdered, revenged, conquered, and died

unrepentant in . . . Gondal and Angria. (Moers, 172)

In addition to the variety of influences briefly
discussed above, these authors also inherited another type of
literary influence--conventions of novel writing. The
"formal difficulties in the novel itself" (Stubbs, 54) in
addition to restrictions levied on female authors because
they were female provide a fascinating glimpse into
nineteenth-century literature and society.

Nineteenth-century novelists inherited a tradition,
albeit a fairly young one, which affected the form of the
novel.

It is not the intent here to review or discuss the

eighteenth- and nineteenth-century history of the novel, but

 

—_‘

 

32

to remember that nineteenth-century novelists descended from
the line of Samuel Richardson (1689-1761), Henry Fielding
(1707-54), and Tobias Smollet (1721-71), and drew sustenance
from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1712-78) roots (Moers, 123).
This tradition restrained novelists in general and women in
particular, who had to overcome the feeling that writing
novels was an unsavory occupation for women. Fanny Burney
took a courageous step by entering the field, but ". . . her
personality suffered for years from the necessity of demon-
strating in her manners that a girl need not necessarily be
brazen and fond of publicity because she wrote novels. . . ."
(Masefield, 23) Thus, in addition to inheriting a literary
tradition, women also faced the difficulties of entering the
occupation.

Jane Austen's entrance into the field introduced a
formula which proved very difficult to break as the nine-
teenth century progressed. In an enlightening study titled
Yigtims of Convention, Jean Kennard traces the "two suitors
convention" that Austen firmly established as a model. The
two suitors formula defined the

female quixotic novel, in which a young girl learns to
abandon a View of the world based on fantasy and adjust
herself to reality, . . . She used . . . the unscrupulous
or 'wrong' suitor and the exemplary or 'right' suitor as
the touchstone of value in her heroine's progress toward
maturity. . . . The heroine's (maturing) personality and
development are . . . defined through comparison with

two male characters. (Kennard, 11)

In this formula, "wrong" suitors exhibited such vices as

greed and selfishness which violated the social code,although

33

outwardly they were often quite charming. The "right"

suitors reflected the virtues of kindness and duty to neigh-

bors. They had strong feelings,but these were balanced by

recognition of the social norm's limits or society's bound-

aries. By the end of the novel, the heroines were "echoes

of the men they marry," although, according to Kennard,

.Austen wanted all people in society, not just women, to

kxalance private feeling and societal obligation. Conversely,

turwever, the male heroes did not necessarily choose between
tmvo women who exhibited "right" and "wrong" characteristics;

trlat is, men were not defined or related to two different

sizandards of behavior which women reflected. Men were

Iassually seen in relation to other aspects of life (Kennard,
ILEI, 44-45).1 As Kennard notes, few nineteenth- and even
izvventieth-century novels show women compared to a social
£31:andard created by women or who balance their heterosexual

13€Elationships with work and other considerations (Kennard,

156).
One of the problems with this formula is that it was

Ei .literary convention which did not always reflect the com-

p1«exities of life. The "hero" and "villain," against whom

women compared themselves, embodied virtue and vice. Finding

‘tWNTD men who actually reflected this neat split of character-

j~5itics would be a great coincidence. Another problem is that
\
1Alexander Welsh in The City of Dickens expresses a
(3(3rmrary view about later Victorian novels in which he thinks
(e hero defined himself in relation to the heroine (Welsh,

219).

 

:-

... .

.-. -

 

~a

‘

an.

.- q

n

n ‘

 

 

 

r._...

----

.u

 

 

34

the two suitors convention worked well when no conflict
existed between the marriage and the author's point of view
(as in Austen's novels), when the maturing of the heroine
‘was not central to the novel (as in Gaskell's Mary Barton),
or when the hero and heroine made the wrong choice and con-
veniently died (as in Emily Bronté's Wuthering Heights).
lihen the heroine's maturing was central, however, and when

sfne achieved some individuality and independence at the end,

tliis sometimes created an unsatisfactory ending. Contrary

tc> a certain degree of achieved independence, the heroine
stzill subordinated herself to a man who did not necessarily
ennbody the values of the author to the full degree (as in

IEJ.iot's Middlemarch and Charlotte Bronté's Shirley).

(1(ennard, l3)
Kennard's study illuminates the fact that marriage

llcaomed as the significant female achievement in a large

Illlmber of nineteenth-century novels. Women novelists tended

t1<> imagine marriage as a ". . . state of moral possibility,

‘tlle successful marriage both reward and arena for a woman's

gCNodness."(Spacks, 79). The emphasis on property in England

ccDrltributed to the form of the novel in which the link

between marriage and property created the drama. The pro-

ta.gonists often lived a whole life in the novel between the
(3(3rning of age and marriage: "Before the marriage of the hero
and heroine the action comes to a standstill, and after the
l1“Earriage and arrangement of the estate are certain, the novel

closes. . . (Welsh, 223, 219).

.IIII-___

 

35

Although courtship and marriage occupied both male

and female novelists, women faced a double bind when they

'wrote about them. Women theoretically were more emotional

'than men, so love seemed an appropriate topic for them; how—

ever, they were not supposed to write about it. If they

dwelled on it, men considered them as reflecting the worst

'traits of women. If they avoided it, men concluded they were

iJIferior as writers. If a woman succeeded in creating an

atrtractive male character, readers immediately began to guess

at: the author's real-life experience. Nineteenth-century

aLIthors smarted under feminine ideals. Charlotte Bronte

ivxrote to George Lewes, "'Come what will . . . I cannot, when

It ‘write, think always of myself and what is elegant and

<311arming in femininity; it is not on these terms, or with

£311ch ideas, that I ever took pen in hand.'" (Quoted in

53110walter, 7) As the century progressed, the Victorian

1Teastrictions closed in. The training in "repression, con-

<2ealment, and self-censorship" inhibited female writers to

‘tlie point that they developed what amounted to a special

Lléinguage. Victorian readers criticized "coarseness," which

ral'lged from inclusion of 'damns' to the moral tone of the

‘v‘Dnman writer. This often resulted in a rather pallid, bland

DI‘Ose, which in turn male writers criticized for its lack of

\
lContemporary women criticize female concentration
C>r1 love as succumbing to the snare which holds them to men.
15 they write pornography, both men and women conclude they
13e trying to write like men, since of course no women read
E><>xnography, let alone write about it (Moers, 143-44).

u"‘
a~~

.o‘

.n‘

n-'

..e

 

 

 

 

u.-
5v“
'1
‘v
4
H.
...
~-
‘I
u
-
‘-
1"
. .
~
'4‘
,.
.,‘
y
s
.
s
.
~‘e '
- n a
e.
‘4‘!"
o

36

passion. When the female writer did take on a more pas-

sionate tone or subject, the criticism poured forth in

shocked tones, as when the Brontes published Jane Eyre and

Wuthering Heights .
Compounding this situation, women also faced the

;problem of portraying male characters. Since so many areas

()f masculine experience remained closed to them, women relied
seven more heavily on their imaginations to create men, often
prnojecting aspects of themselves into these characters. By
tile 1850's, this dilemma resulted in the "woman's man," who

‘WEis either "impossibly pious and desexed, or impossibly idle

a11d oversexed. . . ." (Showalter, 133) Women writers them-

seelves, showing a mixture of frustration and deference to

Dneen, remarked on their inability to portray male characters.

deirgaret Oliphant concluded that "'. . . men in a woman's

13<>Ok are always washed in, in secondary colors.'" (quoted

2111 Showalter, 135).

Women authors became a controversial subject for

<31:itics. In his "The Lady Novelists" (1852), George Lewes

WITote that women tried to imitate men, when ". . . to write

EiSB women, is the real Office they have to perform." (132)

Betsically, Lewes supported a realistic approach to fiction in

which authors based their writing on real experiences of

Gavery'day life (Praz, 323-24). However, as can be seen above,

Eil>proaching fiction from this view led women straight down

t:l‘le path of even heavier criticism. In effect, Lewes pushed

female authors to write in a way which he and certainly most

.IIII-___

 

 

 

"'..v
..

.v’"

.y-‘

~,.

 

 

“.4.
.a

v.

~u...
.. '-
4

-v ‘

"V I
.c. I

   

 

"\‘

 

37

other male critics would probably have disliked.
George Eliot approached her analysis of her con-

temporaries in a demanding way, as indicated by her famous

article titled "Silly Novels By Women Novelists" (1856).

Eliot also felt that women's literature reflected weaknesses

and deficiencies in subject matter, moral tone, and

«educational discipline. She gleefully categorized women's

ruovels into several types: (a) "mind-and-millinery" in which

RKJmen who were heiresses, or who had ability and charm but

nr: rank or wealth, captured every passing male, (b) "oracu-

lEir" which expounded the writer's religious, philosophical,

<31: moral theories, (c) "white neck-cloth" which drew a

tissually insipid clergyman as the main character, and

(<3) "modern-antique" which analyzed the domestic, struggling

eexJeryday affairs of people and overlaid these with classical
Ireeferences, often incorrect ones, a fault which critics

aCcused Eliot herself of committing (448-59).

Eliot felt that these novels Often confirmed the

already strongly held prejudices against women as being con-

<2€Erned with trifling topics and not well-educated. She

Cleasired that female authors conform to high standards of

SQholarship, greater intellectual orientation, high moral

tlclne, ". . . patient diligence, a sense of the responsibility

j-rrvolved in publication, and an appreciation of the sacred-

hEiss of the writer's art." (560, 454) Eliot herself, of

<2Ourse, stretched herself to the utmost to conform to these

rn-<>stly male-devised strictures of writing.

.u- '7‘

”HI.
’ a

'.v'fi '
,9“ ‘

. . n
.n- 1-!
”‘.-A ‘
,. 0' w
. 1“

 

um .
H I
..._ _

 

u.. -n

.-
x-"
i-

.
.“

'u

in;
(II

38

The litany of restrictions on women as nineteenth-
century writers and as women might be summarized as follows.
Wbmen generally stayed home with the social, decorative, and
child-bearing roles which formed the ideological position
by mid-century of women occupying an internal world where
feelings predominated, while men moved in the external world

Munich emphasized work from which women were generally

en<cluded. This domestic world led to women's emphasis on

lrave and personal relationships within which their fidelity,

(nontinence, lack of sexual desire, and ignorance of sex

(ichnated as desirable traits. Women became guardians of the

fnome, morals, and virtue. By keeping women restricted, men

EIrotected their property from the claims of possible illegit-

iJnate children. In addition, in life and in the novel,

‘Vcnnen's primary experiences remained secret: puberty, men—
Struation, childbirth, menopause, and organic problems never
Saw the light of day or discussion and often became the sub-
jiaczt of incredible diagnosis and treatment by male doctors.

As a result of these limitations, women writers

ESLlffered the pains of a literary double standard. For a long

'tiilne, male writers saw them as competitors for the same

“‘Eixket. Once this scare subsided, male critics concluded

tirlat women's writing remained inferior to men's because of

tlrle weaker female body and the biological imperative of women

6‘53 childbearers. Women's limited experience in the world led

t:l'lem to cultivate the feelings and overemphasize romance, so

3‘15 they wrote, they should write only sentimental, romantic,

IIIIIIII-__

 

39
people-oriented novels which contained no morally dubious

characters. But if they did write these types of novels,

they risked attacks by male critics for being too sentimental

or knowing about sex when it was not proper that they should

be aware of such a subject.

Furthermore, women risked the charge that only

unhappy, frustrated women wrote books and that they merely

imitated men who possessed imagination and trained minds,

both of which women lacked. Overall, women's strongest

traits included sentiment, refinement, tact, keen obser-
Vation, domestic expertise, high moral tone (Eliot might
have disagreed with this), and knowledge of female char-

aCter. They lacked originality, intellectual training,

abstract intelligence, humor, self-control, and knowledge

of male character. Males possessed all of the desirable

tJi‘aits women lacked plus open-mindedness and knowledge of

eVerybody's character (Showalter, 73-98; Stubbs, 3-15).
Male writers did not escape from restrictions on

tl‘leir writing, either. Both men and women faced an inter-

eSting combination of inhibitions during the nineteenth

Century. For example, novels (and other writings) were Often

read aloud in family settings, which limited the way in which

writers presented the story. Serialization led to the

“ three-decker novel" which forced writers into the contor-

tions of lengthy plots, numerous characters, and endless

Qescriptions. The expurgation or "bowdlerization" of books

(named after Dr. Bowdler) took place regularly from the

_

40

1830's onward. Mudie's Select Circulating Library, begun in

the 1840's, operated as a deterrent and censor to books which

Charles Edward Mudie disliked. As a last resort, the

Obscene Publications Act (1857). ostensibly controlled por—

nography, but it also controlled the language, situations,

and characters in books. The spate of obscene publications

‘trials in the 1880's and 1890's seemed like a great attempt

tn: control writers and intellectuals who no longer accepted

ezxternally defined morality (Stubbs, 15-25; Cruse, 321).

With the combined literary double standard and the

Sreneral societal moral and literary framework, it is indeed

Siurprising that any nineteenth-century women dared take pen

But hundreds of them did. With this

1J1 trembling hand.
COmplex, although lightly sketched, historical, institutional,

earna literary background in mind, it is now appropriate to

‘tlxrn to an overview of what women wrote about men in Britain

4111 the nineteenth century.
It is important to remember that the primary subject

rmatter concerns images, an elusive concept but one encoun-

tleared often. An image usually means a mental picture which

I:‘eépresents something in the outer or external world. These

j<nnages help us to make sense of reality and provide a "mental

$31lorthand" for ordering experience. Thus, we carry around

V'thh us images of things, people, abstractions, events, and

‘EDJLaces, to give a few examples. As time passes, images enter

JLIIto our unconscious and help "shape our consciousness".

"CDUr images create the world for us. . . ." (Stubbs, ix, x)

 

A.

0".
e

x..-

.._.

“‘-

 

41

Thus, the novel is significant because it becomes the repos-
itory of its author's mental images, which not only tell us
something about an author but about the world of that time.
The novel in England developed at a time when
industrialization began to create a split between home and
workplace, between a private and public sphere. Ideally and
in the prevailing image, women became guardians of this
private, domestic sphere. The nineteenth-century novel,
especially the Victorian novel, became a vehicle which probed
that domestic sphere and the relationships within it. Thus,
despite literary conventions and the restrictions placed on
women generally, their writing probably reflected middle-
<'l’lass women's images of the social structure, men and women,
the family, and relationships as well as any other source
that might be consulted. In addition, nineteenth-century
male and female novelists' views of society tallied more
c33L<>sely in their accounts of how society actually behaved
than modern novelists' versions probably will a century from
nOw. The nineteenth-century novelist, especially as the
Victorian moral code closed in, worked within a more firmly
established social and moral framework and had less incli-
I”lation or latitude to criticize it. Thus, in looking at
r1ineteenth-century women authors' images of men, there is
evidence to think that their views reasonably reflected at

least middle-class women's perceptions at the time (Stubbs,

g __ _________

42
x-xiii; Faber, 11-12; Calder, 9; Spacks, 9)1

For women writers throughout the century, but
especially in the first half, a major problem regarding men
centered on how to work them into the plot. Since the realm
of experience within the novel remained predominantly domes-
tic, and men remained essentially apart from this scene,
novelists turned to a variety of devices. Women characters
"adopted" men. Some men were orphans. Others became ill
or crippled for a time. Mothers, sisters, or wives
instructed men on "manliness." Male heroes could not
tiirectly exercise violence or naked power. In addition,

runnerous balls, parties, holidays, or dinner events allowed
rmen.into the home (and conversely, allowed women out).
Ckertain occupations permitted men to enter and leave the
iionestic scene, so that some retired from military life or
343d a military life with periodic leaves. Others were
clergymen and naturally entered home-life. Several were
Jdandowners and spent time overseeing estates and visiting
h(Dues. Many male characters existed with a life-style that
c“Entered on leisure, and the reader presumes or is told they

fled money through inheritance. Whatever the case, the women

\

1In addition, see David Daiches' introduction to
Calder in which he states that readers can now comfortably
goiback to considering ". . . the human (and more partic-
ularly the social) base out of which literature arose in the
first place, the kinds of human situations that literature
reflects. . . ." (Calder, 9) after about forty years of
ingesting the "new criticism" which seeks to separate liter-
ature from history, to make it timeless, and to read it for
the writing per se.

 

 

 

is.

-vv

 

.uw.

 

o-A

--...
4

.e,_

U
n-‘

.I

 

I, .‘

s‘q

 

43

authors sought to integrate male characters into an essen-
tially closed domestic scene which the men entered and left
at will, often reporting what went on in the active, outside
world which existed as the male province.

Somewhat contradictory but explainable images of men
occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centu-
ries. Women often portrayed men as predators; that is, all
but the most worthy men would take sexual and financial
advantage of women whenever possible. Thus, it was necessary
that women be educated and guarded against male predators.
JEtiquette, social and craft accomplishments, regard for
Parents and property, and obedience to religious and other
types of authority protected them for marriage and domestic
life.

The male predator often appeared as the man who
iibducted a female and/or eloped with her. Much drama in
Inovels of this earlier period resulted from abduction and
ialopement. The view that men were predators stemmed not only
35rom.the belief that women were physically weaker but also
Ifirom the fact that women lacked economic rights and inde-
Ekendence. After all, fathers paid a dowry to husbands to
marry their daughters, and many worried fathers who feared
they could not manage dowries for daughters appeared in
fiction. For the physically and economically vulnerable
female, marriage was not only desirable but acted as a
refuge from the world. On the other hand, of course, many

respectable men appeared in late eighteenth- and early

44

runeteenth-century novels. Despite the image of some men as
pmedatory, men also appeared in their roles as benevolent,
paternalistic, kindly, and wise beings just as often as did
the predators or even fools, who provided diversion or
expressed an author's distaste for certain professions (such
as the clergy) or roles (such as fathers). In this early
period, also, women authors did not overtly question the
roles of either men or women, although they might examine the
conflicts created by the roles.
A third general trend in the novels of this early
(period showed that if women's roles were circumscribed, men
(lid.not have a wide range of opportunities for employment,
exither. Early nineteenth-century novels (and Victorian
fixztion, also) showed men in few occupations. Very few
Were actually shown working in the context of the novel.
iflnis might have been due primarily to the limitations on the
VWDnen authors themselves as mentioned earlier. The men
Skenerally ranged through landowners, officers, lawyers, and
(ilergymen, and many simply had unspecified private means of
Jdivelihood. This reflected the middle- to upper-class
fOcus of the novels.
Showalter presents one intriguing theory of images

‘3f men in what she considers the feminine phase of writing
from the early 1800's to about 1880. Male characters
variously represented money, mobility, and power; they

loved sports and animals; they could withstand pain; they

Sublimated sexuality into religious devotion, heroic actions,

 

.nv‘

”-

‘
.‘q.

‘
.u--

.v‘

oil

 

 

...

-:,,

~‘~ .

tun.
.

¢._

 

   

45

or just plain hard work; they reflected success, initiative,
thrift, industry, and perseverance; or they championed causes
such as improving the lot of the working class, slaves, or
prostitutes. In short, they did many things that the women
authors wanted to do if they had been men or wanted men to
do. In some instances, the male characters reflected char—
acteristics of the successful female author. In Showalter's
view, female authors often projected themselves into the male
characters: "Their heroes are not so much their ideal lovers
as their projected egos" (Showalter, 136).

As the Victorian era approached, the novel tended to
inarrow in scope. Maria Edgeworth's heroines faced danger but
Imoved freely and widely; Jane Austen's heroines at least
Eitayed busy. Victorian women, however, moved less freely and
(then reflected "stasis and boredom" (Calder, 56). They
Irepmesented and moved in the sphere of the "home," that most

important Victorian institution:

In Victorian fiction almost the whole of human life could
in a sense be contained in the family, for that part of
life which lay beyond the confines of the family was
usually considered to be incompatible with a moral View
of human relations. . . . The Victorian novel may be said
to be about men and women, but particularly women, seek-
ing protection and fulfillment. . . . The sources are

financial security, property, a spouse, and chil-
dren. . . . in Victorian fiction. . . . women are seen

to be multifariously engaged in a contest with an over-
whelming paternalistic society. (Calder, 14-15)

Thus, men still retained their characteristics as
Predators and holders of power while also being seen as
Sources of protection, benevolence, wisdom, security, and

paternalistic attributes. More than ever, however, men lived

46

cmtside the home; that is, their working lives carried them
into the unrelenting commercial, industrial world from which
their only respite remained the home, "a haven of peace in a
hostile and impure world" (Basch, 7). Not only were women
considered guardians of the hearth or "the angel in the home"
in this theory, but they also carried on the responsibility
of improving men's character, and by implication, improving
the character of society (Calder, 34).

Despite this dichotomy of home and work and the
usually narrow sphere of action, Victorian novels did present
a wider range of male occupations and activities. Depending
CHI the setting, men appeared with greater or lesser frequency
ias members of the Royal family, titled nobility, country
Eflentlemen, civil servants, armed service officers, doctors,
llawyers, tradesmen, industrialists, and farmers. The urban
Scene included skilled craftsmen, unskilled workers, upper
<21ass, middle class, and some artists (Faber, 16-35). Within
'Ehese roles, one of the men's greatest concerns centered on
kxaing or becoming a Victorian "gentleman" which combined
aincestry, social behavior, and moral behavior. "Gentle"
1Dirth with the right to bear arms most clearly defined a
‘gemtleman, although he need not be titled. Looking like a
‘Jentleman or possessing "good breeding" counted, also.
‘3ent1emen maintained appropriate manners and conduct; they
were self-controlled, generous, brave, honest, and did not
brag. Acquiring an education and wealth helped make a

gentleman, although these were not definitive attributes.

1.,2

i.-

.’

an;

~A-u

u...‘

 

y-ce
- .

--. ‘

 

I.l-~

a...

 

 

 

 

”I R

47
Morally, the gentleman attempted to be honest at cards,

avoid acts of cowardice, defend the helpless, and be

\drtuous. The gentleman could, of course, participate in the
double standard of sexual behavior without regret or censure.
Members of the lower and middle classes aspired to the social
and moral behavioral aspects, especially the respectability,
of being gentlemen (Faber, 126-45).

As women portrayed men in these roles in the mid-
century, a number of themes appeared. Both men and women
.remained essentially desexualized. Women's sexual being
existed only for one purpose: procreation (prostitutes
existed to satisfy the "male appetite"). Women's desex-
‘uaJization helped men pour their energies into production and
vwork instead of diverting themselves into pleasure and
teroticism (Basch, 71). Consequently, a popular male fic-
‘tional figure was the clergyman. Not only did he easily
Gunter the domestic scene, but he existed as an "intermediate
Sewn" a man acceptable, accessible, more refined, and not too
Knessionate to women. Women also participated in theological
debate by writing about clergymen or writing religious
rlovels (Showalter, 139-48).

On the other hand, women also created another type
(bf man, the brute. Women writers (and readers) apparently
Saw an appeal in Rochester and his descendents, the "rough
lover," who in addition to being passionate, was also ugly,
repulsive, brusque, cynical, impetuous, rebellious, sarcastic,

and without career dedication. In a way, the fictional

 

h-

\
‘\

 

.‘II

“«_

0....
a

.3.-

~"

 

-‘.

 

48

brutes treated women as equals since they did not protect
them or treat them as weak or foolish (Showalter, 139-48).

In presenting the men of whatever role or type, a new
theme crept into some women's novels. Women authors blinded,
crippled, maimed, or in some way blighted a number of their
male central figures, which seemed like a hostile response
if not a symbolic castration of the men. This could indeed
have been the case, but this reaction could also be construed
as giving men a dose of what it was like to be female
(dependent, powerless, frustrated), and showing how this
iaxperience might prove to be healthy and instructive. To
Imany writers, these experiences made the men whole people
land.gave them insights into the emotions, intuitions, and
Sinner life which Victorian society instructed women to value
(Showalter, 150-52).

The appearance of the "rough lover" and the maimed
fuero caused shock among conventional Victorian readers and
Vtriters. Far more prevalent were patriarchal fathers and
ENaternalistic husbands (even when authors criticized these
ITDles). Female characters often loved men as friends, as
'teechers, and as father substitutes, in addition to loving
themsexually. Together, along with wide age discrepancies
1metween partners, these characteristics contributed to the
‘3esexua1ization of men and women. Lovers acted as surrogate
fathers, and master—pupil relationships developed to repress
ideas of female sexuality. These conventions placed a great

strain on British writers. European novelists of the same

49

era did not suffer under the same artistic and ideological
restrictions (Stubbs, 31-32).

Throughout this period, as in earlier periods,
husbands and fathers controlled the money and thereby held
the power over wives and children. They might be depicted
as "hero and villain, as righteous man and moral pervert,
as pillar of society and destroyer of individual freedom"
(Calder, 82) , but the ideals of the family and marriage

remained as the frame of reference for the Victorian authors.
Attacking these ideals challenged the family and social
structure, although some female authors, such as the Brontés
and George Eliot, nurtured the germ of resentment against
this "egocentric, authoritarian male point of View" (Calder,
210, 14, 82-83, 202; Delafield, 272, 275).

By the time of the death of George Eliot in 1880,
Women's writing had passed into a new phase. First, no
Woman in the era prior to World War I achieved the stature of
an Austen, Bronte, or Eliot. Second, beginning by the 1860's,
WOmen more likely entered a writing career earlier, stayed
in it, married, and had children. By the 1880's, these
Career tendencies were well-established. Third, from the
1860's to the 1880's, the new generation of writers inaugu-
r‘ismted a phase which emphasized emotions, secrecy, crime, and
Violence as Opposed to the domestic novel of the first half
of the century. Women in novels confronted men more openly
and were more likely to be hostile toward men. These "sensa-

tion" novels enjoyed a wide popularity in the latter part of

 

50

the century. At the same time, many women writers of this
period resisted this new trend and continued to write in a
traditional, domestically-oriented vein of the earlier part
of the century. Indeed, many established writers criticized
the new offerings, and even the sensationalists hesitated to
step beyond the boundary of Victorian convention to make a
sharp inquiry into women's and men's roles. They did, how-
ever, begin to challenge such accepted stereotypes as the
May-December marriage and the pattern of female self-
renunciation and sacrifice for men, and they often began
novels with a woman in conflict with male authority (Show-
alter, 29, 154, 160-81).

Revelations arising from the 1864-84 campaign against
the Contagious Diseases Acts confronted respectable, na'ive
women with ". . . a series of shocking stories of male bru-
tality, profligacy, and vice. It was not just that brutish
Soldiers benefitted from government supervision of brothels.
The policeman and the doctor became agents of the state in
their forcible examinations of women accused of prostitu-
tion. . . ." In fiction, the reactiOn to this often took
the form of a negative attitude towards the male sexual drive
and a desire to improve the sexual morality of men (Show-
alter, 187, 186-89).

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
WC>1‘nen's images of men in novels reflected even more domi-
nantly than in the early nineteenth century the notion that

InaJ':riages should be love matches. A strong current ran

51

through many novels to the effect that marriage was not
especially desirable for women, because women lost more in
personal freedom and emotional tension than they gained
through marriage. Early twentieth-century novels attacked
more openly what men had created: the industrial order,
technological innovations, the moral code. And, many women
writers hinted that men lacked sensitivity and imagination
to understand women's desires to be independent financially,
enjoy personal freedoms, and also have satisfactory relation-
ships with men. Despite these trends, however, some women
still wrote novels with traditional nineteenth-century male
and female characters. For example, men still dominated
marriages, controlled finances, and provided status. They
were still the creators of civilization. Women still
sacrificed themselves to the will of men, depended on them,
and viewed marriage as the primary goal and responsibility in
life. Women had not yet created standards of their own for
assessing their own everyday lives, material culture, or
intellectual views. Female characters still defined them-
selves through men and by male standards. In many ways,
despite the trends indicated, the models of men created by
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte haunted the whole nineteenth

Century. It is their lives and works which are the tOpics

Of the next two chapters.

 

.uyu:

‘v~

,
".77

....,2.

"‘Dy a

.—
Inna».

"‘. .
- -
'th"

-
‘0

‘w-

4
as.‘
nk‘.

 

I...

v-
" u
u.‘.

 

 

1q~

 

III. JANE AUSTEN: INTEGRATION

Jane Austen, who was born in 1775 and died in 1817,
lived out her short personal and professional life in con-
servative, rural, southern England. Her father was an
(Dxford—educated clergyman and her mother came from a well-
cmonnected family. They raised eight children, of whom Austen
inas next to the youngest. Jane had one sister, Cassandra,
(and.six brothers. All of the brothers except George, who was
Inentally retarded, achieved successful careers in a variety
of occupations. Two brothers, Francis and Charles, became
admirals. Two others, James and Henry, became ministers.
Henry also_tried careers in the army and in banking. And,
Edward, who was adopted by wealthy, childless relatives,
eventually owned considerable property. Thus, Austen's
father and brothers provided her with a variety of male role
Inodels. Her sister, Cassandra, played an important role
‘throughout Jane's life. Mainly, the two sisters remained at
home, but both made brief trips to Oxford, Southampton, and
IReading for schooling.

Despite being traditionally considered as having
<1ived an isolated life, Austen shared balls, socials, and
Visitations with a wide circle of immediate family, rela-

ttives, and friends in varied geographical settings. Due

52

,,.- :Y"
lo"“b ‘
.

n
.,..:N <
. ._u ‘

9
..v I.
.

’ V
(a.
s

I V
H... on
. .
~0— van

. . .
an A?!
and)

N at.

.-
o—a in“

. I
...A
~“
c.‘ ad
‘eu-

.1. a

.
la .y

\ _‘ Y
.-. IV.-

«... .

.10.,

.
.‘M‘
-e'~..s a

.

-.‘.

in.

~.,_

 

 

 

53
primarily to personal and financial circumstances, the family

moved several times during her life. For her years until
early adulthood, Austen lived at Steventon in Hampshire. She
and the family then moved to Bath for a few years. This was
followed by a period in Southampton and then a lengthy stay
in Chawton (Hampshire). Finally, in failing health, Austen
lived out her last months in Winchester, where she died in
1817 at the age of forty-two.

These circumstances affected her literary production.
She wrote her novels in two groups separated by nearly a
ten year span. None of her work appeared in print until
1811, but she wrote three novels in "embryo" at Steventon
from about 1796 to 1800: Pride and Prejudice, called at this
stage (1796-97) "First Impressions;" Sense and Sensibility,
titled originally (1797-98) "Elinor and Marianne;" and Ngrth—

.ggger Abbey, first called "Susan," begun soon after. At

 

iBath, she worked on The Watsons (unfinished). At Chawton,
She rewrote Sense and Sensibility (published 1811), revised
jfiride and Prejudice (published 1813), wrote Mansfield Park
(published 1814), Emma (published 1815); and Persuasion
(written in 1816, published posthumously). Northanger Abbey
Vvas also published posthumously. Apparently, Persuasion did
Ilot receive as thorough a revision as the prior novels. Lady
SSusan and Sanditon exist, along with The Watsons, unfinished.
IIn addition to her fiction (including juvenilia), Austen
wrote letters to her sister Cassandra and others beginning

about 1796. Cassandra destroyed the more intimate letters

.
z" 3'
y, ...
' a

.

‘*

 

..
”ea—u.
.-

. .
u-vv )-

neid

.
«1‘!
...vi
.

.- pa.

us my

 

 

‘
~o.-

OI.--

e..4—.

'Int‘

.1
so“- .

.
5...,

-.._‘

o...

“ v“

u
c“*

a. .‘

 

 

54

and excised passages from those preserved. (Masefield, 36-
45; Lascelles, 1-40, Brown, 8—9).

Several biographical and stylistic circumstances
affect an analysis of Austen's images of her male characters.
Despite the existence of letters and family memoirs, Austen
is not a well-known author personally. She stayed content-
edly within the family circle, had little apparent desire to
mix in prominent circles, and remained isolated from leading
intellectuals of her time. What her readers lack ". . . for
illumination on her art, is any extensive record of her deep
inner experience, such as we have in the . . . life of Char-
lotte Bronte by Elizabeth Gaskell." (Gillie, 22) In addi-
tion, Austen's letters reflected what is a particular char-
acteristic of many women's autobiographical works. Compared
to men's autobiographies,

. . . women's autobiographies rarely mirror the . . .
history of their times. They emphasize to a much
lesser extent the public aspects of their lives, the
affairs of the world, or even their careers, and concen-
trate instead on their personal lives-domestic details,
family difficulties, close friends, . . . Even in the
autobiographies by women whose professional work is their
claim to fame, we find them omitting their work
life. . . . (Jelinek, ed., 7-8, see also Elizabeth
Winston, "The Autobiographer and Her Readers: From
Apology to Affirmative," 93, 94; Lynn Z. Bloom and Orlee
Holder, "Anais Nin's "Diary in Context," 207, 208)
ZXusten's letters certainly illustrated these observations,
61nd this brief reference to the differences between men's and
Vvomen's autobiographical writings should be kept in mind when

capproaching Austen. At the same time, her letters (and the

r1Ovels) did indicate more than domestic concerns, such as the

55

influence of Samuel Johnson, William Cowper, George Crabbe,
and the artist William Gilpin on her thinking and writing.
In addition to noting these biographical details, reading
Austen is enhanced by knowing something about the character-
istics of the novels: the arena within which she worked;
narrative style; use of irony; the functions of the heroine
and hero; and the concern for morality, personal relation-
ships, and personal characters.

Many writers, including her contemporaries, have
commented on the limited scope of Austen's novels. However,
her work reflected the conservative eighteenth-century hier-
archical view of society which saw each unit as a "microcosm
of the whole. . . . All that was required was to examine the
conduct of the individual in the context of his family and
immediate community. . . . Being a very formal society,
eighteenth-century England placed tremendous emphasis on the
moral implications of the individual's polite perform-
ance. . . ." ("Introduction," in Monaghan, ed., 2-3) Thus
Austen's oft-quoted remarks about writing on a small piece of
ivory with small brush strokes about a few families in a
country village really required no defense. Instead, her
arena encompassed what an eighteenth-century person needed
to know ". . . in order to arrive at an understanding of the
major forces at work in society." ("Introduction," in Mon-
aghan, ed., 2) At the same time, her work included the
nineteenth-century concerns with individuals and their rela-

tions to society.

.nev“

'yynav"'

.- ‘
.~~“.

and IV.

uquv‘

"new.

-Qofi?’
. .. u
o-Uv. h

a“...
....C .

.,.-

. -.ld-.

“.~ I
\- \—

Iw~3~ ‘_

 

“Qu .

-
.‘UO.

TF‘A‘.

"‘ ~-
0

v.-~H

,“
a

lb’v

“n.

 

56

Her narrative style has always been noted for its
economy in words and unelaborate sentence structure. In
addition, she developed variety of tone in the characters'
conversations, matched the characters' speech to their char-
acters, and evidenced a rhythm in her words which was drama-
like. She shied away from figurative language and shifted
it when used onto unlikable or burlesqued characters.
Finally, she often practiced "forethought" in the action,
made sure her details were correct, and established both a
sense of place and the passage of time without elaborate
description. Habitually, she "established the heroine's
position as the point of view for the story." But she had no
objection to communicating directly as the narrator, and she
regularly used irony as a complicating techniquel (See
Lascelles for a full description of Austen's style).

Just as important, perhaps, is what is not in her
narrative, according to Mary Lascelles. Deaths played a
small role, usually occurred prior to or outside the action,
and did not impinge heavily on the plot. She did not empha-
size fortune or chance in human affairs. Although Austen was
concerned with money, it did not overwhelm the action. She
did not deal with people in large groups or mobs, but focused

on the individuals; men never appeared in a scene alone. Her

 

l"Irony" can be defined as an awareness of "an irre-
solvable disparity between ideal and actuality, between social
pretense and moral reality, between the way people are and
the way they ought to be. . . ." In general, "What Jane
Austen means by the term 'satire' is merely the humorous
awareness of incongruity that modern critics of her work call
'irony.'" (Nardin, 5, 2-3)

a!:": I
'..‘.J\

rut.

.* -~' v‘

’. A

.-
0.) u
.. "V
a y.
.

 

‘Iaqo

m.....

4
e."

 

 

‘
“Zn ‘,

v..‘

57

characters had no need to react to strange or unusual cir-
cumstances. Finally, there was not too much evidence of
symbolism, abstraction, or the impact of ideas (Lascelles,
130-36).

In organizing the novel, Austen typically first
presented the heroine and her original circumstances. Then,
the characters who acted as antagonists and intriguers moved
in, along with an examination of what in the heroine's make-
up presented an obstacle to her future happiness. In all of
this, society acted in Opposition or set constraints on the
individual, who must find a way to achieve a morally accept-
able, personally satisfying relationship which did not defy
society but which made the constraints irrelevant (Gillie,
119, 143-44).

Jane Austen's heroines suffered from a variety of
material, familial, social, and personal disadvantages. They
did not always possess great beauty or advanced feminine
accomplishments. They were restricted in where they went and
whom they met. However, Austen projected virtues onto them
which reflected a code of desirable behavior; they possessed
or acquired ". . . candour of heart, balance of judgment,
sensitivity to truthfulness of feeling . . ." Despite limi-
tations as women, they did have power over their own behavior.
By themselves, their function was to ". . . save their socie-
ties within their immediate social context . . . the heroine
has to discover for herself how to live in relationships, in

a sense that will give social living a meaning which society

58

by itself cannot discover. . . . The Jane Austen heroine was
to live from her personal resources in a space which con-
fined them. . . ." (Gillie, 96, 95, 145, 97; Moers, 6, 7)

Within this space, Austen activated her male char-
acters. The heroes were among a group of characters who
influenced the heroine but whom the heroine misjudged due to
the heroes' natures and/or circumstances. The men in the
novels presented a real problem. They appeared primarily
through the heroine's eyes and thus the reader sees them only
from one point of view. Men and women met in social cir-
cumstances with prescribed behavior. Men tried to attract
women (and vice versa) but if men failed to act in a con-
ventional social manner, they appeared aloof or reserved.
Women did not know how men behaved among themselves. All
of this contributed to the difficulties of women knowing men
well and made men appear to be mysterious characters: "The
heroes, then, are presented under unusual circumstances. . .
In general, it is the role of a Jane Austen hero to provoke,
offset, goad, and magnetize the heroine. He may do all
these. . . ." (Gillie, 111-12) In addition, the hero func-
tioned as a marriage prospect, a significant role. With few
other choices open to her, the heroine did have some choice
in whom to marry.

There are at least two other ways to approach the
male characters. Austen Often posed a group of "nasty"
young men against fathers or father figures. These men were

not particularly evil (such as Frank Churchill and Wickham),

 

 

IDFA

.-
uA. eh!

u-vvv‘
.

can-

nay--

~A~vu

 

H

.A ,

4..-

:-
.Aa‘

.wu

fill.

uvuu‘

"Iva.

‘u. v

 

Ԥ
0‘5
w‘y

.-
t“

'WA
u.
a,»

59
but they rebelled against authority. Although Austen pre-

sented few successful parents, she did suggest a clear moral
lesson: "There are . . . two kinds of men, fathers and sons,
the sons indicative of the perils of society while the
fathers hold moral law together. . . . Jane Austen's heroines
marry fathers rather than sons." (Calder, 22-23) Finally,
from a psychological viewpoint, Austen's men may be seen in
three classes: ". . . those who are aggressive but not good,
AWickham, Willougby7, those who are good but unglamorous,
Linightly, Edward Ferrar§7 and those who are aggressive and
good enough [Darcy, Wentworth7. . . . there seems to be a
longing in Jane Austen for aggressive triumph, primarily
through a talented, masterful, and socially desirable man."

(Paris, Character and Conflict, 181)

 

How does all of this relate to the presentation of
men? Austen's scope (the domestic scene), her narrative
style, and use of the characters signals that she created
carefully constructed but.rather restricted and sometimes
skeletal versions of the male characters. Her lifestyle and
the structure of her own novels, in addition to the stric-
tures placed on female writers, lead to the observation that

. . . she had never written Lintil a first draft of
Persuasion/ what could be called a scene between lovers.
There had been scenes of courtship . . . ZQPEZ no lovers'
rights of privacy will be invaded. . . . Lang/ when at
last the response Lmutual love7 comes . . . then the
lovers walk away into a friendly cloud. . . . With this
reticence which was instinctive in Jane Austen must be
ranked other motives_for limiting her province, which may
be called personal [her lifestyle, and social, or the
reaction of the criticg7. . . . (Lascelles, 125-27).

 

 

 

.,. A

AAJV

u
l- or

‘d 0‘

 

 

60

This summarizes the characteristics of Austen's
style in relation to her presentation of men. It will also
be helpful to review the general subjects in the novels in
which the men figured predominantly. Propriety;or manners
and conduct,which included appropriate behavior relating to
the pursuit of courtship and love, marriage, education, and
work and leisure,involved a major portion of the men's time
as they carried out various social and professional functions.

People gained knowledge of each other in Austen's
novels through their behavior in social situations:

. . . a person's social behavior is the external mani-
festation of his moral character. In others, it is
fidelity to the precepts of a more fundamental 'true
propriety'--the latter itself variously identified--that
provides the standard of virtue. . . . propriety is true
propriety only if it is backed up by solid moral con-
siderations. An ethic of propriety which consists of
following the forms of conventional propriety for no
other reason than that they are in general use, is never
. . . a valid one. True propriety can only spring from
some sort of sincere moral commitment to self and others
zoutgard forms often do indicate inner moral worth, how-
evegfl . . . Just how close the identification between
true and conventional propriety . . . Ai§7 changes from
one novel to another. (Nardin, l, 15, 16)

A man's social behavior was thus extremely important.
Interpreting this behavior correctly provided many of the
plot complexities in Austen. To illustrate the above, for
example, Mr. Knightley's manners in Emma were generally con-
gruent with his true inner moral worth. John Dashwood in
Sense and Sensibility was polite only to be self-serving.

Frank Churchill in Emma hid his intentions behind charming

manners. Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice behaved correctly,

 

but Elizabeth Bennet interpreted this as aloofness and

61

haughtiness. The women, too, of course, reflected varying
uses of manners. The women generally lived through an edu-
cational process (largely through the exercise of manners)

intended to mature them (except in Persuasion).

 

Austen provided numerous examples designed to show
how propriety or conduct and manners was significant to the
social order and men's responsibilities. Sir Walter Elliot

in Persuasion did not take care of Kellynch Hall, so he had

 

to leave because he had not conducted himself according to
the standards of his class. Mr. Knightley in Emma did not
like to dance, and he did not win Emma's full approval until
he danced in a situation which demanded a proper use of
manners (David Monaghan, "Jane Austen and the Position of
Women," in Monaghan, ed., 113-14, 117). There are also
numerous illustrations of how propriety regulated male-female
relations within the social order. Young women should not
carry on correspondence with men unless engaged, although
Darcy's long letter to Elizabeth served as a turning point

in Pride and Prejudice. In this example, however, the con-

 

ventional propriety may be abandoned for a higher cause.
Husbands and wives usually referred to each other as "Mr."
and "Mrs." Young women and men could be together without a
third party, however, and conversations occurred on nearly
any topic: "Colonel Brandon . . . can explain to Elinor Lin
Sense and Sensibility7, a girl of nineteen, a whole history
of seduction, illegitimacy, and desertion. . . ." (Craik,

39). However, few opportunities really existed for private

62

mama-a-Eaaaa between men and women as friends or fiancés
(Craik, 30-41). In addition to reflecting moral worth and
social organization, propriety also indicated a gentleman's
social status. Again, Austen provided many details of how
men displayed their status: house and grounds should be in
proper order, servants should be in appropriate roles and
well cared for, and carriages should be used correctly.
Although dueling waned, gentlemen still participated in it
to show their status; Colonel Brandon took part in a duel

outside the action of Sense and Sensibility.

 

Propriety was heavily involved in courtship and love
because courtship took place in full view of the public.
Secret courtships and engagements received disapprobation.
Initial meeting, attraction, flirtation, infatuation, and
love occurred in the social world with accompanying pre-
scribed behavior. For example, society frowned upon love at
first sight. Women's love was based not on infatuation but
on esteem and gratitude. Men were allowed by society to love
more capriciously, but they were expected eventually to
esteem the chosen women. Austen subjected all of this to her
ironic pen which complicated the true meaning of the court-
ship. For example, good looks and charming manners did make

immediate impressions on men and women. In Pride and

 

Prejudice, Elizabeth was attracted to Wickham, Darcy to Eliz—

 

abeth, Bingley to Jane,and Mr. Bennet married Mrs. Bennet due
to infatuation as a young man (Jan S. Fergus, "Sex and

Social Life in Jane Austen's Novels," in Monaghan, ed.,

63
68-72).

Underneath the wit lay a more serious possible out-
come of attraction and flirtation. Earlier novels than
Austen's often concentrated on abductions and seductions as
a major theme; women remained truly vulnerable. Although not
a major theme in Austen, male attraction could result in
these same outcomes: "Courtship . . . implies something a
man does to a woman, and can include adultery égeduction, and
abductioa7." (Moers, 71) Lydia Bennet lived unmarried for

a time with Wickham (Pride and Prejudice), Maria Bertram

 

committed adultery (Mansfield Park), Colonel Crawford kept

 

a mistress (Mansfield Park), and Willoughby seduced Colonel

 

Brandon's ward (Sense and Sensibility). Although most of

 

this action took place outside the novel, these possibilities
lurked nearby.

In portraying courtship, Austen relied on social and
literary conventions to show men in love. Mr. Elton (Emma)
was a sanguine lover with blushing and sighing symptoms.

Captain Benwick (Persuasion) displayed a "melancholy air" as

 

he should in his grief over a departed fiancee. Mr. Knightley
kept a reading list that Emma made up as a girl of fourteen.
The use of eye contact and exchanges of looks between lovers
remained strong images. Diet also played a part; Mr. Wood-
house (Emma) opposed both rich diets, which act like aphro-
disiacs, and marriages. Pictures of the beloved played a

role in numerous incidents, and mention of the beloved's name

often played havoc with the lover's nerves. Men who suffered

64

in love often showed "oppression of spirits." Edward Ferrars,
Colonel Brandon, and Captain Benwick gave way to this langour,
and Mr. Knightley evidenced a loss of physical vigor when it
appeared that Emma might marry Frank Churchill (McMaster, ll-
13, 20-25). In the stages of courtship, increased knowledge
always changed the relationship. Attraction or infatuation
could lead to dislike or indifference or love. The most
thorough studies of love occurred in the novels where the
characters already knew each other and came to a deeper

understanding of each other's character: Mansfield Park,

 

Emma, Persuasion. In all of Austen, . . . sex, love and

 

knowledge reinforce one another." (Fergus, in Monaghan, ed.,
73, 75, 76).

Eventually, of course, some courtships culminated in
marriage, and Austen explored this relationship in intriguing
and complex ways. In the novels, marriages had already
existed for long periods or they were about to be consummated
once the main characters sorted out their various difficul-
ties. However, Austen did not study any marriages over time,
and the married couples were secondary characters. Above
all, few satisfactory marriages existed during the action of
the novel. Mothers and fathers were inept or worse; husband-
and-wife relationships were often the object of sharp wit.
Austen did not explore men's roles in marriage to any extent.
However, it is clear that Austen considered marriage as a
predominant institution, and the main characters marched

irreversibly toward that status throughout the novels

65

(Lloyd W. Brown, "The Business of Marrying and Mothering,"
in McMaster, ed., 28, 29).

Two views of marriage emerged from these seemingly
contradictory ideas. The first was the realistic View.
Austen lived and wrote in a society which allowed few choices
to women and burdened men with great responsibilities.
Fathers gave daughters to husbands, and unless daughters came
into the marriage with a settlement, husbands literally owned
their wives (and their children). In return, women gained
status and (theoretically) financial security as wives. On
the other hand, men committed themselves to a life-long
financial responsibility in an age when no insurance, social
services, national medical care, pensions, free schooling,
or realistic divorce existed. Thus, constrained and com-
mitted to what was considered a life-long bond with few
options, many wives and husbands existed in less than satis-
factory alliances. Defective marriages, mothers, and fathers
in the novels pointed up defective social institutions,
including the Church, as much as they served plot purposes.
The happy couples at the end of the novels stood out as
exceptional persons in this otherwise realistic view and did
not necessarily herald the transformation of the society
(Brown, in McMaster, ed., 36, 40-41).

The second view of marriage was more idealistic.
Austen's main characters (such as Darcy and Elizabeth,
Knightley and Emma, Wentworth and Anne) achieved one or all

of the following, which made the marriage possible: a new

66

moral and/or social maturity, deeper understanding, self-
sufficiency. Once these transformations occurred, the
principals entered into the marriage and often removed them-
selves from the old society to a new location. The marriages
were love matches based on physical attraction, mutual esteem,
shared interests, common experiences, and equality. Men were
not outwardly dominant in these marriages, and even though
the women (except Emma) often gained financial security, the
last pages of the novel did not forecast the total subordi-
nation of the women as housekeepers and mothers. On the
other hand, there is no reason to believe that Austen foresaw
other than reasonably conventional marriages. Other than the
implied happy marriages of the main characters, only two
happy long-married couples existed in the novels of this

study: the Crofts (Persuasion) and the Gardiners (Pride and

 

 

Prejudice). Significantly, neither of these couples came

 

from the rural landed gentry. The Crofts were navy peOple,
and the Gardiners were business-middle-class representatives.
Modern critics see Austen's "essential feminism" from this
idealistic viewpoint of marriage. But this is a debatable
position which focuses on the women in the novels. Most
interestingly, perhaps, was the almost complete absence of a
positive study of men as husbands and fathers in any Of
Austen's novels. (Craik, 58-59; Brown in McMaster, ed., 28,
33, 40-41).

Austen did explore rather thoroughly, however, the

older man who married the young girl. This theme appeared in

67

many novels throughout most of the nineteenth century. Some
critics believe that in many of Austen's novels, the man, by
virtue of his age, experience, and authority, taught the
young woman to abandon or modify feminine and adolescent
values so that she could survive in a mature, rational, and
educated male world. As the teaching progressed, the woman
fell in love with the man and vice-versa, and the tutor—pupil
relationship became a mutual, happy love match where intel-
lect and emotions complemented each other. (McMaster, 43-
46).

This analysis fits certain Austen novels, such as
Emma, and makes sense considering the schooling experience of
boys and girls at this time. Some boys received instruction
from private tutors, then went on to public school and uni-
versity. These experiences created some sterling characters,
such as Darcy and Knightley, although the reader does not
know that they went to a university. In contrast, girls
generally received their education at home with perhaps some
forays to boarding schools. On the whole, they were respon-
sible for their own education which supposedly produced good
household managers and some proficiency in music, needlework,
decorative arts, and perhaps languages. Women were not to be
ostentatious about these accomplishments and, above all, they
were not to be idle. Men thus rather naturally become
women's teachers in these circumstances, according to some

analysts (Craik, 43-47, 48-56; McMaster, 43-46).

68

On the other hand, Austen introduced many other male
characters who did not fit these norms, and who did not
necessarily teach the heroine. She alluded to lawyers'
training and admission to the navy as learning experiences.
Schooling as such played no part in the action of the novels.
Clergymen, who received university training, were often not
attractive characters. Elizabeth Bennet taught Darcy as much
as he instructed her. Anne Elliot remained essentially the
same while Captain Wentworth came to be enlightened. Fanny

Price (Mansfield Park) also essentially remained the same

 

while Edmund underwent a change (Craik, 43-48, McMaster, 46).
Thus, the formal education men received and their position as
older and more experienced men who formally or informally
instructed young women did not always necessarily dominate
Austen's education theme.

Formal education did not really prepare men for work,
nor was it intended for that purpose. "That Frank Churchill

/Emma7 or Henry Tilney /NOrthanger Abbey7 or Edward Ferrars

 

/§ense and Sensibility7 . . . should defy domestic tyranny,
strike out on his own, and take a job seem beyond Austen's
imagining. . . ." (Moers, 74) This summarizes a popular
view regarding Austen's men and their work, or lack of it.

At first glance, nearly no one, male or female, worked in
Austen's nOvels. However, on a closer look, Austen presented
a wider range of male occupations and more trenchant theories

on work and leisure than many have imagined.

69

As a female novelist, Austen faced the same problems
as other women writers who devised various ways to work men
into the scene. Austen's action took place primarily in
drawing rooms, dining rooms, and ball rooms--the inner
female sanctum. Men entered and left this arena at will, so
essentially they reported what they did elsewhere. Three
occupations fitted these requirements and Austen's personal
knowledge particularly well: military life, the ministry,
and landholding. Men in these careers took extended leaves,
made professional visits to homes, carried on responsibil-
ities in a domestic setting, and had leisure time. Lawyers
appeared also, but less frequently. Occasional servants,
doctors, and tenants also appeared. Austen presented nearly
no men engaged in industry, commerce, business, or manufac-

turing except for Mr. Gardiner (Pride and Prejudice) who was

 

important in the novel and successful.

Austen included soldiers and sailors in Pride and

 

Prejudice, Mansfield Park, and Persuasion. In the Napoleonic

 

 

 

era, the military exerted a strong presence even though
Austen supposedly took little note of historical events. She
described not the regular army, however, but the militia or
standing army that remained visible in southern England due
to French invasion threats. Men bought commissions and
occasionally went into the regular army, but the militia did
not attract the best men, as indicated by Wickham, who was a
major disruptive character (Christopher Kent, "'Real Solemn

History' and Social History," in Monaghan, ed., 99, 100).

70

Navymen figured more prominently in Austen, primarily
because two of her brothers achieved high rank as admirals.
She even used some of the names of their ships in the novels.
The navy recruited men of lesser class perhaps, but its
members could become Officers by merit, as did Austen's
brothers, as well as through purchase of commission. Austen
tipped her pen toward the character-building aspects of navy

life as seen through William Price in Mansfield Park and the

 

navymen of Persuasion (Craik, 73-78).

 

Austen created numerous clergymen as characters.
The clergy played a major part in rural gentry life, and
society did not separate them from daily activities (they
dressed similarly to others, danced, played cards, etc.).
But Austen made some of them into ridiculous characters and
seemed, at times, to conSider the profession as nearly redun-
dant. However, her father and two of her brothers lived
successful lives in the ministry. Perhaps her clergymen
characters, as did many others, reflected Austen's standards
simply by failing to live up to them. Apparently, she did
not care for ostentatious manners or emotionalism in the
Church, and thus she reflected an establishment instead of
evangelical view. Clergymen in the novels spoke no doctrine
and carried out no services, but the good ones did their job
well and lived according to high moral standards. As time
progressed, she wrote somewhat more seriously. Henry Tilney

(Northanger Abbey) and Mr. Collins (Pride and Prejudice) gave

 

 

way to a serious study of the ministerial life with Edmund

71

Bertram (Mansfield Park) and to the admonition that Mr.

 

Elliot (Persuasion) was suspected of "Sunday traveling."

 

(Gillie, 13, 16; Craik, 79-85, 87, 89-90)

Landlords also occupied a major position in Austen's
novels. Many of her men owned land, and she made their
duties clear. Although she gave few details of an actual
working farm or estate (except for Mr. Knightley's activities
in Emma), Austen considered the landowner to be a role model
of his class and responsible for a well-run estate. Darcy
and Knightley excelled in their duties; their estates were
nearly extensions of their personalities. Darcy became much
more attractive to Elizabeth when she visited the excellently-
run Pemberley estate. Knightley busied himself throughout
the novel with duties relating to tenants, managers, servants,
farm Operation, and his role as a J. P. These men were not
idly rich, although Austen presented Knightley differently
from Darcy. On the other hand, men who did not perform their
duties as landlords and class representatives, such as Sir
Walter Elliot, ruined themselves and crippled the estate
(Craik, 65-66, 119, 152, 158).

The development of male characters from Darcy through
Knightley and Wentworth pointed to Austen's changing attitudes

towards work and leisure. In her early novels (Northanger

 

Abbey, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejadice), Austen

 

supported the idea of a wise use of leisure time; men (and
women) could 22! but they did not necessarily ae anything.

Rich people gave livings; men inherited estates. Even though

72

no state help existed for men and they worked or received a
living, the emphasis in these early novels was more on

judging individuals for what they were, not for what they

did. Characters had a real problem with leisure time, and
Austen often discussed self-improvement and self-discipline-
oriented activities. The individual ". . . is neither
expected to do sustained, socially valuable work, nor
expected to be unhappy because he has little to do." (Jane
Nardin, "Jane Austen and the Problem of Leisure," in Monaghan,
ed., 129, 123-129; Craik, 9; Moers, 73)

In the later novels (Mansfield Park, Emma, Persua-

 

 

emem), however, Austen's attitude changed, apparently due to
the influence of Samuel Johnson's idea of work. He con—
sidered ". . . the value of sustained, useful work--work as
a religious duty, work as a means to satisfaction, idleness
as seductive, yet debilitating, work as necessary to the
maintenance of mental balance. . . ." (Nardin, in Monaghan,
ed., 132) The last novels considered work as personally and
socially fulfilling; self-improvement through leisure activ-
ities no longer qualified as being purposeful and utilitar-
ian. Thus, the religious life as a profession, the landlord
as an active participant, and the self-made and prosperous
naval officer were in turn explored in the last three com-
pleted works. Austen still measured men's characters by who
they were, but she gave increasing emphasis to what they did.

In this survey of men's activities in the novels,

Austen, above all, concentrated on two themes: character and

73

personal relationships refracted through the societal lens.
The truly good men (and women) set high standards of outward
social behavior and inner moral worth: ". . . character--and
the fruit it bears--is always of supreme importance. . . ."
Character is tested through ". . . relationships between
individuals; these are materials with which she always works,
and the terms in which she reveals her very serious preoccu-
pations with personal morals and the individual's relation
with society." (Masefield, 58, 48-54; Craik, 4-5) How well
these general observations bear scrutiny will be seen on

closer examination of the men in Pride and Prejudice, Emma,

 

and Persuasion. Even with the revision and publishing

 

history, Austen wrote these three novels in the order given.
They fulfill the criteria of reflecting a career development
over time as well as the other criteria mentioned in Chapter
1.

Men play many roles in Austen's novels as they move
through the activities described in the previous section.
Women relate to them in society generally and as marriage
prospects. Men have occupations or professions. They hold
political power and reflect social status. They act as
suitors, husbands, fathers, friends, teachers, and lastly,
they serve as ideals or heroes. Austen portrays them pri-
marily through the heroines' eyes.

In Pride and Prejudice, the major male characters are

 

Darcy, an aristocratic land owner; Bingley, his landowner

friend; Collins, a clergyman; Mr. Bennet, husband, father,

74

and a member of the lesser gentry; Mr. Gardiner, uncle to the
Bennet girls and a successful tradesman; Wickham, an officer
in the militia; and Colonel Fitzwilliams, an officer. Mr.
and Mrs. Bennet have five daughters and an estate entailed

to Collins, which makes it necessary for the Bennet girls to
find suitable husbands for financial security.

Sisters Elizabeth and Jane are aware of their cir-
cumstances and this awareness colors their relation to men.
If they do not remember that each man who passes through the
neighborhood is a potential husband, Mrs. Bennet reminds
them. In addition, class complicates relationships. From
her middle-class viewpoint, Elizabeth sees aristocratic men
as snobs (Darcy, in turn, looks down on anyone remotely con-
nected with trade). Propriety or manners and conduct also
pose a problem. All of the men whom Elizabeth meets reflect
some behavioral flaw, if not immediately, then eventually.
Along with these obstacles, Elizabeth values relationships
with men which hinge on true mutual personal feeling (Mon-
aghan, 64-66; 94, 106, 107). At one point, after all of the
men concerned enter the story, Elizabeth vents her frustrated
and disappointed feelings. Bingley has abandoned Jane, Darcy
has acted too haughtily, and Wickham's charm barely covers
his mercenary motives. Elizabeth declares:

. . . I have a very poor opinion of young men who live
in Derbyshire, and their intimate friends who live in
Hertfordshire are not much better, I am sick of them
all. . . . I am going to-morrow where I shall find a man
who has not one agreeable quality /COlline7, who has

neither manner nor sense to recommend him. Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing after all. (32, 107)

75

And,she plans to go on a summer holiday with the
Gardiners: "Adieu to disappointment and spleen. What are men
to rocks and mountains?" (EE, 107) Of course, Elizabeth
knows that marriages loom on the horizon, and the novel
explores the prospect of marriage in detail from several
angles. Elizabeth consistently feels that ". . . one should
marry for love, for personal satisfaction, and out of a
regard for the human qualities of one's partner. At the same
time, one cannot ignore the socio-economic position of the
other person." (Paris, 102, 103) Elizabeth confirms this
position by refusing to marry Collins, a very foolish man
(EE, 74-77). Mrs. Bennet sees marriage only from the view-
point of establishing her daughters with men of considerable
wealth. She announces this on page one of the novel and
consistently holds this materialistic position until the
last pages, when Elizabeth announces her engagement to Darcy.
Mrs. Bennet, in near ecstasy, proclaims:"Lizzy! how rich and
great you will be. . . . what jewels, what carriages you will
have! . . . Ten thousand a year! Oh, Lord! . . . I shall go
distracted. . . ." (BB, 261)

Mrs. Bennet's views, though exaggerated, are not
unfounded. Charlotte Lucas provides a realistic,if poignant,
version of the lack of prospects for women without husbands.
Austen uses forethought by introducing Charlotte's opinions
early: "In nine cases out of ten, a woman had better shew
me£e_affection than she feels. . . . Happiness in marriage is

entirely a matter of chance." (ea, 14, 15) Charlotte

76

follows through with a concerted attack on Collins' atten-
tions. She accepts his proposal quickly ". . . from the pure
and disinterested desire of an establishment. . . . Without
thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had
always been her object; it was the only honourable provision
for well-educated young women of small fortune. . . ." (E3,
85, 86) This prospect of an unhappy, loveless, convenient
marriage appalls Elizabeth, who persists in her insistence on
mutual esteem and love as the basis for women's relation with
men (23, 88, 94)-

These views on women's relations with men and the
prospect of marriage serve to introduce the men in their
various roles. Austen provides an occupational span of
clergymen, landed gentry, military men, and some tradesmen
and lawyers. None of these men is really shown working,
however. They pass in and out of the drawing rooms.leaving
their occupations behind. However, how they act might indi-
cate something about Austen's views towards their responsi-
bilities. Clergymen come under attack through Collins.

Darcy reflects the proper functions of a landlord, and
Bingley is an amiable if weak person. There is little clue,
however, as to Bingley's activities as a landlord. Mr.
Bennet makes a weak husband and father, but Austen does not
really comment on his role as lesser gentry farm owner and
manager. Wickham makes a poor militia officer, and,no doubt,
he will be a poor regular army officer, but Colonel Fitz-

william is an exemplary regular army man. Mr. Gardiner is a

77

fine example of a middle-class tradesman, but Sir William
Lucas is also a tradesman who becomes an insufferable petty
titled aristocrat. Elizabeth's uncle Philips is a lawyer
who is neutrally presented, but Wickham's father was also a
lawyer until he became Darcy's capable estate manager (EE,
ll, 47, 48, 55, 56, 96). Austen seems to be saying that
certain duties exist for men in each of their occupations or
professions; failure to pursue their duties results in
personal problems and failure to serve society. The profes-
sions themselves do not really come under attack or receive
praise, except that Austen does reserve a bias toward the
landowner as a preeminently responsible social agent.

Through their positions, inherited or earned, the men
exercise political power and confer social status. Even
someone like Collins gains status and confers it due to his
clerical position. All of the women at one time or another
allude to the possession of power and status. At the Nether-
field Ball, "Charlotte could not help cautioning her éEliz-
abeta7 in a whisper not to be a simpleton and allow her fancy
for Wickham to make her appear unpleasant in the eyes of a
man of ten times her consequence." (£3, 63) When Elizabeth
and Colonel Fitzwilliam converse at a later time about his
problems as a younger son, Elizabeth retorts:"Now, seriously,
what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When
have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever
you choose, or procuring anything you had a fancy for?" (EE,

126-27) At the near-end of the novel, power and status still

78

remain on Lady de Bourgh's mind as she spitefully reminds
Elizabeth of how really low the Bennet family is on the
social scale, and how much power the de Bourgh family, with
Darcy at its head, confers on others (EE, 245, 246).

Throughout, Elizabeth's and Darcy's relationship is
greatly affected by his status and what it would mean for
her to be his wife. In the end, Darcy must come to some
accommodation with the Bennets and the Gardiners, and Eliz-
abeth must gain a positive view of the aristocracy (Monaghan,
66-68, 81, 90-91). However, it is very significant that Eliz—
abeth revises her opinions quite drastically once she sees
the Pemberly estate, and she dates her love for Darcy from
that visit (BE, 258): "Elizabeth's change of feeling is
produced almost entirely by Darcy's wealth and grandeur. . . .
Darcy's love means that she ii . . . an appropriate mate for
'one of the most illustrious personages'. . . ." (Paris,

132, 134)

Although men confer status on women, the men must
travel the route of courtship to acquire the women. Court-
ship, as indicated earlier, presents problems in this society,
". . . given the restrictive patterns of courtship and the
modest behavior prescribed for women. . . ." (Paris, 108)
Young people seldom know one another well at all. Men must
press their advantages, and women must respond suitably in
social settings at what sometimes seems breakneck speed under
Austen's ironic handling. Appearances, physical and behav-

ioral of both men and women, mean a great deal.

79

Bingley is attracted almost at once to Jane at the
first dance. An evening, then a few weeks, is sufficient
time to establish him as a serious suitor. He exhibits signs
of love. Elizabeth remarks to her aunt Gardiner: "I never
saw a more promising inclination. He was growing quite
inattentive to other people, and wholly engrossed by
her. . . . Could there be finer symptoms?" (EE, 98) Under
Darcy's influence, however, Bingley abandons his suit, and
aunt Gardiner,in this same conversation,is prompted to
observe that men Often exhibit this behavior: "A young man
. . . so easily falls in love with a pretty girl for a few
weeks, and when accident separates them, so easily forgets
her, that these sort of inconstancies are very fre-
quent. . . ." (EE, 98) The Bennets and Gardiners eventually
discover that Darcy is the major blocking force in this
courtship. Once Darcy removes his opposition, the dénouement
of engagement occurs very quickly over the course of six
socially correct visits which Bingley pays to Jane and the
Bennets (EE, 229-38).

Collins also moves through the courtship ritual
quickly. Even though he is an object of Austen's derision,
Collins still reflects the pattern, if exaggerated, of male
courtship: visits, meals, conversation, some time alone with
the intended, declarations, informing the parents, a period
of engagement, and the marriage. He intends to woo Jane
until he finds her interested in Bingley. He changes his

goal to Elizabeth ". . . while Mrs. Bennet was stirring the

80
fire." (EE, 49) Elizabeth refuses him, and little time

elapses before he proposes to Charlotte while carrying on
most of the courtship in the Bennet house. No affection, as
in the Bingley-Jane relationship, exists, but Collins does
follow through the ritual of wooing a wife.

Even though Darcy's and Elizabeth's courtship takes
longer to conclude, about four months, immediate impressions
are made by appearance: each is attracted to the other. Most
encounters occur in public places, such as the dances, the
Bennet house, the Bingley house, or Pemberley, with many
people observing. It really takes a break in the courtship
pattern to bring Elizabeth and Darcy together. They meet
alone in significant encounters, which is acceptable but not
at all common, and Darcy writes Elizabeth a lengthy letter,
even though they are not engaged. Once the major misunder-
standings are cleared away, their road to engagement is not
too long. Darcy comes to dinner and is polite to Mrs. Bennet;
he and Elizabeth finish unraveling some misunderstandings
and are privately engaged in one conversation (EE, 35, 36-38,
71, 251-56).

Wickham is never a serious suitor to Elizabeth, but
Austen uses him to show the power, seductiveness, and some-
times danger of initial appearance and charm towards women.
He impresses Elizabeth right away. At the Netherfield ball,
". . . the young man wanted only regimentals to make him
completely charming. His appearance was greatly in his

favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine

81

countenance, a good figure, and very pleasing address."
(EE, 50) He uses the courtship ritual to cover his mercenary
intentions, and even though Elizabeth never really considers
marrying him, his actions are enough to block her route to
Darcy. Wickham presses his advantage onto the young Lydia,
and he is successful in seducing her, carrying her off, and
under pressure, marrying her.

Austen spends more time on courtship and the prospect
of marriage than she does on actual husbands and fathers.
She provides a slice of Collins' life as husband, and his
character as a husband matches his actions as a bachelor and
suitor. Aunt Gardiner is presumably happy with Mr. Gardiner.
The Lucas couple and the Philips couple exist in very
shadowy form. The reader sees little of Darcy as a husband,
although the last pages of the novel hint at his exemplary
behavior towards Elizabeth.

The most complete portrait of a husband and father is
Mr. Bennet, and this is a somber picture, indeed. Although
he is given witty lines, he is a weak and detached figure who
neglects his duties as a husband and father. In his younger
years, Mr. Bennet fell into the trap of being attracted to
Mrs. Bennet only on the basis of appearances. The existence
of five daughters tells the reader that he probably fulfilled
his sexual desires and duties, or so it appears that the
Bennets kept trying to have a son. But even though he has
five daughters to marry, he does little socially to enhance

their prospects. He makes only perfunctory appearances in

82

the house to meet visitors, and he refuses to attend social
functions. He is lax about discipline and allows the young
Lydia to enter into the seductive atmosphere of a town with
a military garrison attached. Generally, he retreats into
his library domain with the clear understanding that he is
not to be disturbed.

Elizabeth is fond of him, though, and he considers
her the only light in his life. He respects neither his wife
nor his other daughters, except perhaps Jane. He is galva-
nized into action and some regret for a short time when Lydia
runs away with Wickham, but Gardiner and Darcy actually carry
out the majority of parental responsibilities in this affair.
Elizabeth feels her father's (and mother's) failings keenly,
and their failures as teachers and role models echo con-
stantly in her thoughts throughout the novel. In the end,
Elizabeth removes herself from the family, and the Gardiners
become substitute parents, even though she retains her
affection for her father.

Men exist as suitors, husbands, and fathers to women,
but they rarely exist as friends on a long-term basis. The
situation of women made it nearly impossible for women to
have male friends. Men were authority figures, relatives,
or possible relatives, but there is no male-female friend-

ship in Pride and Prejudice that does not resolve itself into

 

one of the above relationships. The possibility does exist
that Elizabeth and Darcy become friends as well as husband

and wife at the end of the novel.

83

Friendship implies equality, and men are much more

likely to become teachers or tutors to women. Pride and

 

Prejudice contains a twist on this role, because Elizabeth

 

teaches Darcy as much as he teaches her. Elizabeth dislikes
his influence on Bingley, his resentment towards Wickham, and
his treatment of her and her family. He must learn about all
three, although Elizabeth learns that his dislike of Wickham
is properly placed. Darcy's lessons are matters of conduct,
while Elizabeth's lessons are in the area of her judgment
(McMaster, 50-52). Elizabeth's painful lessons are made more
apparent through the device of Darcy's letter to her. His
letter inaugurates his role as teacher since he explains the
truth about Wickham and why he removed Bingley from Jane.
Elizabeth is so struck at her judgmental failures that she
undergoes a transformation: "How despicably have I acted!
. . . I, Who have prided myself on my discernment. . . . How
humiliating is this discovery! Yet, how just a humiliation!
Till this moment, I never knew myself. . . ." (EE, 143, 135-
40) Thus, Darcy's letter allows her to know herself. Again,
however, the male as teacher is not the dominant motif since
Darcy must also earn Elizabeth's approval through an educa-
tional process.

Darcy becomes the hero of the piece, after all, but
Austen presents comments on the ideal man through the nega-
tive as well as positive actions of other male characters.
Jane remarks that Bingley is "sensible, good-humoured,

lively . . . with happy manners!--so much ease, with such

84

perfect breeding!" Elizabeth adds "He is also handsome."
(PP, 8) However, once Bingley leaves the arena, Elizabeth
muses that he exhibits ". . . easiness of temper, that want
of proper resolution. . . ." because Darcy so easily per-
suades him to leave (EE, 93). In the same way, Wickham at
first possesses ideal qualities: ". . . whether married or
single, he must always be her model of the amiable and
pleasing." (EE, 105) However, Elizabeth learns from Darcy
that she relied on Wickham's word due to appearance only:
"His countenance, voice, and manner, had established him at
once in the possession of every virtue. . . ." (EE, 142)
Similarly, but with the opposite effect, Darcy makes a good
impression on Elizabeth due to his handsome appearance, but
his haughty manner takes him out of consideration for some
time as an ideal (EE, 6, 130-33).

Thus, appearance may at first make the ideal man, and
outward manners may at first impress or irritate the woman.
Ultimately, however, outward appearance and manners must con—
form with conduct in serious matters and inner moral worth
to make a true hero. Darcy's conduct towards his servants
and tenants, fulfillment of his duties as landlord and com-
munity leader, and defender of traditional values through his
intervention with Lydia and Wickham gradually create his
attractiveness as the novel proceeds to the point when Eliz-
abeth concludes ". . . he was exactly the man, who, in dis-
positon and talents, would most suit her. His understanding

and temper. . . . his judgment, information, and knowledge of

85

the world. . . ." make him an ideal man (EE, 214; Paris, 105;
Craik, 67-68; Mudrick, 117, 119). Despite these traits,
Darcy remains basically rather flat. He is not drawn too
fully, and he is seen through the women's eyes, especially
Elizabeth's, which characterizes the presentation of all of
the men in their various roles.

Austen presents a different scene in Emma. Emma
Woodhouse and her semi-invalid father preside as the first
family in the Highbury community. She is a favored daughter,
has no money problems, and exhibits no desire or need to be
married. The major male characters consist of Emma's father;
George Knightley, the squire of Donwell Abbey,who lives
nearby and visits the Woodhouses often; Mr. Weston, who has
just married Emma's governess, Miss Taylor; Frank Churchill,
Weston's son, who has lived in another community with the
Churchill family for some years; John Knightley, George
Knightley's brother, who is married to Emma's sister,
Isabella; and Mr. Elton, the minister, who marries during
the course of the story.

Because of Highbury's situation at the opening of the
novel, Emma's favored position, and her relationship with her
father, Emma has little inducement to comment or think much
about her own relation to men in a romantic context. High-
bury is basically a stagnant community with almost no formal
affairs occurring. Mr. Woodhouse feels bereft because Miss
Taylor has had the audacity to marry and desert them. Change

of any kind represents a threat. In this situation, Emma

86
happily, so she thinks, really lives two lives. One is her
formal, outward, everyday life which is bound by caring for
her father and participating in what few social events exist.
The other is her "imaginist" life or her very active mental
world into which she directs her real energies. She con-
siders herself a successful manipulator of people's lives
because, as the novel opens, she takes credit for the Weston
marriage and plays a large part in controlling an orphan
protegé, Harriet Smith. With these "successes" in mind,
Emma continues on this path of trying to manipulate various
relationships (Austen-Leigh, 306-7; Monaghan, 116, 122, 123).
The one non-manipulative relationship which exists is that
between Emma and Knightley, a man sixteen years her senior,
who is a long time friend and, by his brother John's marriage
to Isabella, essentially a relative of the family. His
frequent visits at the Woodhouse home take on the character
of father-daughter exchanges.

In some of these exchanges, Emma and Knightley
discuss marriage. Emma not only states her personal position
but gives a comment on the contemporary state of the insti-
tution:

. . . I have never been in love; it is not my way, or my
nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without
love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a
situation as mine. Fortune I do not want; employment I
do not want; consequence I do not want; I believe few
married women are half as much mistress of their
husband's house, as I am of Hartfield; and never, never
could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so

always first and always right in any man's eyes as I am
in my father's. (E, 57-58)

87
Thus, Emma is aware that men confer financial secu-

rity and status, but she already possesses these. She is
willing to consider marriage for love, but only as long as
she can maintain power, which is highly unlikely in a con-
ventional marriage. Emma also feels that men desire beauty
and vacuousness in their wives, which Knightley denies (E,
42-43). Although Emma is certainly aware of the status of
women in her society, she is not yet mature enough to enter
into the courtship and marriage relationships with men her-
self, at least not on a serious basis. She is still a child
in her father's house and in Knightley's eyes. At the same
time, she is willing to manipulate and observe other people
in these relationships. Interruptions in the static life of
Highbury are necessary to cause Emma to change her position.
The Highbury community is so enclosed that few occu—
pations are represented. Almost no range exists outside of
rural landholding. Austen creates another minister, Elton,
who reflects poorly on his profession and marries a socially
climbing wife after he embarrasses Emma with a futile attempt
to attract her. At one point, he serves as a marriage pros-
pect for Harriet Smith, but only in Emma's eyes. Despite
his unattractiveness as a character, he still has status,
and he really would not consider marrying the lowly Harriet.
John Knightley is a lawyer who carries on his professional
life in London. Austen presents him as generally preoccupied
with his work and with little spare time. Even though he

fastidiously protects his time at home, he exerts an

88

overbearing presence on his wife and children. Amiable Mr.
Weston is in business of some sort not specified and has
retired to the country life. Frank Churchill is unemployed
with no prospects. Mr. Woodhouse is, of course, retired

from life as a landowner and active community participant.
Interestingly, Austen paints a sketchy, favorable portrait

of Robert Martin, who is one of Knightley's tenants. He does
not appear directly very often, but Knightley champions him
as an admirable, hard-working man who is articulate and reads

serious books such as the Vicar of Wakefield. Emma, whose

 

idleness leads her into her imaginary world, looks down on
Martin. Eventually, however, Harriet recognizes his true
worth and marries him.

Martin and the main male character, George Knightley,
represent Austen's evolving views on work as a commendable
activity. Knightley also incorporates Austen's predilection
for portraying the landowner as an admirable, socially
responsible type. Whereas Darcy was a responsible landlord,
he was largely absent from his estate. In Emma, however,
Knightley moves in and out of the action as a working land-
owner. As is the usual pattern, Austen does not show
Knightley actually working, but when he enters the drawing
room or ball room he is Often just returning from his estate
and taking care of matters involving farming, tenants, or
managing. He consults his brother on legal matters relating
to his role as a Justice of the Peace, and he attends meet-

ings as a parish Official: "Knightley's human potential has

89
clearly been developed by his vocational involvements."
(Nardin, in Monaghan, ed., 136-37; Moers, 73-74)

Emma is aware of Knightley's occupation and the con-
sequent power and status which he can grant to a wife, even
though she already possesses a certain degree of both. She
also knows that if Knightley marries, Knightley's nephew
Henry, John's son, will not eventually inherit Donwell Abbey.
On a visit to the estate after a long absence, Emma is
reminded that it belongs to Knightley and that it essentially
exists as a projection of his personality:

She felt all the honest pride and complacency which her
alliance with the present and future proprietor could
fairly warrant, as she viewed the respectable size and
style of the building. . . . It was just what it ought
to be, and it looked what it was--and Emma felt an
increasing respect for it, as the residence of a family
of such true gentility. . . . It was a sweet view. . . .
English verdure, English culture, English comfort. . . .
(E, 244, 245, 246)

On the whole, however, this theme of men as holders
of power is not dominant. Emma gains status through her
father and her association with the Knightleys. But any
change in her status threatens Emma throughout the novel.

The courtship ritual, or rather the lack of it, reflects the
unusual position Emma occupies in Highbury. Formal occasions
for courtship rarely occur. Mr. Woodhouse can endure very
little company, and he opposes marriage. He considers
Isabella, his daughter, and Mrs. Weston, the former governess,
as basically "lost" due to their marriages. Knightley's

visits to Hartfield are not visits of courtship. Elton mar-

ries, and during his courtship, he exhibits some signs of a

90

man in love, such as sighing. But the courtship takes place
outside Highbury, and he is seen mostly as a married man.
Only an outsider who injects himself into Highbury can break
this pattern.

When Frank Churchill finally appears in Highbury to
visit his recently married father, Mr. Weston, he brings a
new vitality, and for two weeks, he carries on what seems to
be a standard courtship of Emma. He visits often, compli-
ments her, and enters into the family circle. Together, they
decide that the Crown Inn should again be the scene of a
ball. When he returns from an absence of two months, the
ball takes place and he plays a major part. At Box Hill, he
openly flirts with Emma. When he first appears, Emma is
impressed by his looks and charming manners towards her.
Basically, no one has treated her this way. She imagines
that she is in love and makes remarks to herself about
symptoms of listlessness, weariness, restlessness, and
stupidity (E, 177-78).

However, Emma feels uneasy once he leaves on the two-
month trip. After all, he did delay very long before visit-
ing his father, she does not want to marry anyone,anyway,
and he went to London just for a haircut! Emma decides she
really does not love him and hopes he will not resume his
attentions to her. Both of them carry on the flirtation at
Box Hill as a game, not as a serious interchange, although
it has seriOus consequences. Emma enjoys the male companion-

ship, however, and the ritual that goes with it. It enhances

91

her and makes her feel desirable. Emma does not realize
Churchill's real intent, which is to cover a secret engage-
ment to Jane Fairfax, another new arrival in the community,
who lives with her relatives, the Bates. Churchill uses the
courtship process as a cover, carries on a secret engagement
which is not proper, and embarrasses and hurts his intended,
Jane, rather purposefully through his association with Emma
(Mudrick, 197-99).

Emma's relationship with Knightley does not take on
the trappings of courtship until late in the novel. He plays
the role of a near relation and the frequent visitor.
Unconsciously, perhaps, he is attracted to Emma because
Austen reveals that he has kept a memento of Emma's child-
hood, and he appreciates her physical beauty as a woman.
Knightley assumes the mantle of a confirmed bachelor, though,
and he dislikes change, also. Both need to become aware of
sexual stirrings towards each other. This begins to occur
at the Crown Ball and at the Donwell Abbey visit. Knightley
rescues Harriet from a social snub by Elton by dancing with
her. This impresses Emma, since Knightley does not dance,
and he then dances with Emma. At Donwell Abbey, Emma
realizes the attractiveness and importance of the estate.
Once these events occur, two further situations shake them
into considering each other romantically. Frank Churchill's
attentions rouse Knightley into the realization that Emma is,
after all, a lovely twenty-one year old woman. Then, because

of her "Knightley rescue" at the Ball, Harriet confesses to

92
Emma that she loves him, and she thinks he returns the
feeling. Harriet's announcement affects Emma immediately:
"Emma's eyes were instantly withdrawn. . . . A few minutes
were sufficient for making her acquainted with her own
heart. . . . Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself!"
(E, 280)

Essentially, however, Knightley really does not carry
on a courtship. And, even when Emma realizes her love for
him and they declare mutual affection, at first she does not
consider marriage. A plot twist at the very close of the
novel allows the marriage, much to Mr. Woodhouse's conster-
nation, and Knightley moves in with Emma at Hartfield.

The marriage of Emma and Knightley closes the novel,
and, as usual, Austen does not provide glimpses of the hero
as husband. In one view, their marriage represents an
achieved maturity on Emma's part, a completed personality on
Knightley's part, and a union of equals, in addition to
acting as a symbol of a resurrected Highbury (Monaghan, 141-
42; Fergus, in Monaghan, ed., 83). However, once Emma
realizes her love for Knightley, she acts in a traditional
female mode of dependence. She gains her sense of identity
and purpose through Knightley. She thinks:

What had she to wish for? Nothing, but to grow more
worthy of him, whose intentions and judgment had been
ever so superior to her own. Nothing, but that the
lessons of her past folly might teach her humility and
circumspection in future. . . . She could now look
forward to giving him that full and perfect confidence

which her disposition was most ready to welcome as a
duty. (E, 328)

93

Emma only becomes worthy of Knightley as a marriage partner
when she shares his point of view and accedes to his version
of reality and truth.

All along, this marriage has been threatened by
Emma's father. Her relationship to him is so strong and
potentially so destructive that she suppresses her feelings
towards others and is perhaps a reason for her flight into
her imaginary world. Mr. Woodhouse serves as a severely
limiting character who is not a good role model or teacher
to Emma. Even though it appears that Emma controls the
household as hostess and favored child, Mr. Woodhouse really
controls and limits her life. Emma chooses visitors care-
fully because her father cannot stand excitement or many
people. He eats a sparse, bland, restricted diet which he
seeks to impose on others. He rarely leaves the house. A
Christmas eve dinner at the Westons, a half-mile away, is a
major production. A visit to Donwell Abbey requires detailed
attention to his needs. He is disconsolate at Mrs. Weston's
marriage, and he is not reconciled yet to his daughter
Isabella's marriage. Unless he is tended to in every partic-
ular, Mr. Woodhouse simply threatens to die. On Mr. Knight-
ley's declaration of love, Emma thinks first that she cannot
leave her father and thus will not marry Knightley. Emma's
relationship to her father remains unchanged throughout the
novel. Austen seems to approve of her devotion and duty,
but does not seem to realize what this type of relationship

costs.

94

Austen presents only a few other husbands and
fathers: Elton, John Knightley, and Weston. None, except
Weston, is an admirable husband, and the fathers (Knightley,
Weston) provide few examples of commendable actions. Elton's
wife manipulates him to a great extent. Knightley is a
restrictive husband and father who is quick to be irritated,
always busy, a formal father to his children, and lacking in
respect towards Emma's father, who receives assiduous atten-
tion despite his crochety character. He usually makes Emma
nervous when he is present (E, 63, 198, 206). Weston is a
pleasant man who rescues Miss Taylor from the status of "old
maid" and who will become a father again in this second mar-
riage. But he has shown little attention to his son, Frank
Churchill, and he sent him to relatives as a young boy when
Frank's mother died. Although this could be considered
responsible behavior, and it was not unusual for relatives
to adopt children, Mr. Weston rarely corresponded with Frank
and almost never saw him.

Again, marriage, husband-wife relationships, and
parental roles pee ee are not necessarily Austen's main
themes. Emma resists her own marriage and plays with mar-
riage through others. Few married couples appear in the
novel, and Austen approves of Emma's relationship to her
father. Austen uses the absence of other role models to
show Emma's education under the guidance of Knightley. She
must abandon adolescent values and activities and learn to

merge her inner life with her outward behavior in order to

95

become a worthy adult. Knightley acts as the teacher in
these tasks and the medium through which Emma comes to know
herself. Knightley is a "perfectionist" who can meet his own
standards; approves of Emma's duty to her father; enjoys his
superiority in age, wisdom, and maturity; likes being right;
and, finally)becomes aware of Emma's potential as his wife
(Paris, 92).

By the end of the novel, Emma realizes that Knight-
ley has been right in his judgments of every single instance
where she behaves according to her own conception of atti-
tudes and values, with the exception of her behavior towards
her father. Knightley disapproves of Emma's crusade to
remake Harriet Smith, whom he considers a poor companion.

He indicates this to Mrs. Weston, thereby faulting her as a
poor teacher to Emma. He states directly to Emma early in
the novel: "You have been no friend to Harriet Smith."(E, 41,
23, 24) He notes the impropriety of Emma's matchmaking
attempts. He reproves her for interfering in the courtship
of Harriet and Robert Martin, whom Knightley considers an
exemplary person. He also warns her against an attempt to
pair Mr. Elton and Harriet.

Knightley also corrects Emma on proper social behav-
ior. Even though she thinks that she acts properly, he
chides her on her slights to Jane Fairfax. Emma's most
serious mistake is to insult Miss Bates at Box Hill, for
which Knightley seriously rebukes her: "How could you be so

insolent in your wit to a woman of her character, age, and

96

situation? . . . Her situation should secure your compassion.
It was badly done indeed!" (E, 257)

Knightley makes known his suspicions of Frank
Churchill's behavior fairly early in Churchill's tenure at
Highbury. When Frank sends a letter to Emma which reveals
his secret engagement to Jane Fairfax and explains his
attentions to Emma, Knightley reads the letter in open
disapproval: "He trifles here . . . as to the temptation.
He knows he is wrong, and has nothing rational to urge.—-
Bad--He ought not to have formed the engagement. . . .
Mystery; Finesse--how they pervert the understanding!" (E,
306-7)

Emma must meet Knightley's high, correct standards.
He makes this clear early in the novel:

To be sure--our discordances must always arise from my
being in the wrong.

'Yes,‘ said he, smiling--'and reason good. I was six-
teen years old when you were born.‘

A material difference then. . . . and no doubt you were

much my superior in judgment at that period of our lives;

but does not the lapse of one-and-twenty years bring our

understandings a good deal nearer?

Yes--a good deal nearer. . . I still have the advantage

of you by sixteen years' experience, and by not being

a pretty young woman and a spoiled child. (E, 67)

Knightley holds this advantage until the end. Emma

reforms her behavior towards Jane Fairfax and Miss Bates; she
chastizes Frank Churchill in front of Mrs. Weston; and she

feels guilty about her role in Harriet's life. However,

whether Emma's character will remain subdued when married to

97

Knightley is questionable. To Austen, Knightley emerges as
a true hero. He plays the role of an exemplary landlord,
reflects the advantages of work, and is the agent of Emma's
education into his conception of adulthood. No other char-
acter in the novel comes close to fulfilling these roles.

Written within a year of her death, Persuasion

 

presents a heroine and scene quite unlike Austen's fresh,

young women and rural, landed society of Pride and Prejudice

 

and Emma. Anne Elliot, about twenty-eight years old, lives
with her father Sir Walter Elliot and sister Elizabeth at
Kellynch Hall in Somerset. Though a titled estate owner,

Sir Walter has allowed Kellynch Hall to deteriorate through
profligate spending and rents it to an admiral and his wife,
the CrOfts. Sir Walter moves the family to rooms in Bath,
while Anne spends some time with her other sister and brother-
in-law, Mary and Charles Musgrove, at Uppercross.

In Persuasion, the majority of male characters are

 

not rural landholding gentry. Only Sir Walter and his cousin
and eventual heir, William Elliot, represent this class.
Charles Musgrove and his family come from the middle-class.
The remaining male characters are naval officers: Admiral
Croft; Captains Benwick and Harville, whom Anne meets at
Lyme; and Captain Wentworth, former fiancé of Anne, who
returns to the scene after an eight-year absence.

Anne exists in an unenviable position throughout most
of the novel. She is the least favored daughter but the most

talented and intelligent. She has a poor chance of marrying

98
well or marrying at all. She carries the burden of an
unrequited love for Captain Wentworth, whom her father and
family friend Lady Russell refused to let her marry because
of his poor prospects and lower-class status. Thus, Anne's
feelings towards men are strongly affected by this experience.
She has had many years to reflect on men and marriage.
Anne's feelings on these subjects are not expressed until the
last pages of the novel because she has repressed them and
has had no one to whom to express them. However, her feel-
ings can be judged to be those she holds throughout the
novel.
Anne and Captain Harville carry on a lengthy con-
versation at the White Hart in Bath while others of their
acquaintance, including Wentworth, hover at the edge of the
action. Anne's View of men focuses on their advantages and
activities in the world,which tend to distract them from
developing deep feelings for the women in their lives. On
men in the world, Anne remarks:
We live at home, quiet, confined, and our feelings prey
upon us. You are forced on exertion. You have always
a profession, pursuits, business of some sort or another,
to take you back into the world immediately, and con-
tinual occupation and change soon weaken impressions.
(E, 221)

On men's advantages, Anne contends:
Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own
story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a
degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not

allow books to prove anything 46h men's or women's
constancy, feelings, etce7. (E, 222)

99

On men's feelings, Anne asserts:
We certainly do not forget you so soon as you forget
us. . . . Your feelings may be the strongest. . . . but
. . . ours are the most tender. . . . I believe you equal
to every important exertion, and to every domestic for-
bearance. . . . All the privilege I claim for my own sex
. . . is that of loving longest, when existence or when
hope is gone. (E, 221, 222, 224)

Captain Harville refutes all of this, but he is not
the main target here. Anne really directs these remarks to
Wentworth,who hears all of this conversation on the side.
Anne is telling him, in a bitter way, that she continued to
love him all during his seafaring absence. At the same time,
she blames him to some extent for quitting her without a
struggle when her father and Lady Russell disapproved of
their marriage. Marriages thus still occur as the result of

appropriate social and financial matches. Significantly,

however, the only marriages presented in Persuasion are

 

middle—class (the Musgroves, the Musgrove parents, the Crofts,
and the Harvilles), and the only happy unions occur among the
naval personnel. Before Anne meets the Harvilles, she thinks
at one point that no couple of her acquaintance seems happy
except the Crofts, because the others lack true mutual
affection and esteem for one another (E, 63, 64).

The naval marriages always exist on the periphery of
danger, however, for the men's occupation is at sea and their
success is measured in war and the number of ships and amount

of booty they capture. In Persuasion, Austen abandons the

 

ideal of the landowner and extolls the naval community as a

desirable lifestyle and profession. This is, indeed, a major

100

change in her thinking about men's occupation, power, and
social status. Although her choice of characters in this
novel may represent a new plot device, the evidence indicates
that Austen chose characters and plot for deeper reasons

than variety.

The novel opens with Sir Walter Elliot admiring his
place in the book on the Baronetage. He concerns himself
only with the externals of his own beauty and rank. He
allows the estate to slip into disrepair and is not willing
to take measures to correct this. His finances are so bad
that his solicitor advises him to rent Kellynch Hall (E, 9-
17). Clearly, then "Sir Walter lives uselessly and fails
to perform even the minimal duties of his station." (Jane
Nardin, "Jane Austen and The Problem of Leisure," in Monaghan,
ed., 137) Sir Walter does not realize that rank, looks,
and manners only count if they reflect the inner man and a
real social function (Monaghan, 146, 147). William Elliot,
the heir, proves to be an unworthy person who also relies on
looks and charming manners. Austen is genuinely distressed
at the sunken position of the gentry.

On the other hand, the navy men exhibit numerous good
qualities. The solicitor, Mr. Shepherd, muses that they
". . . have very liberal notions, and are likely to make
desirable tenants." (E, 22) Louisa Musgrove, one of
Charles' sisters, exults on their ". . . friendliness, their
brotherliness, their openness, their uprightness. . . ."

(E, 95) Captain Wentworth, Anne thinks, ". . . had

101
distinguished himself, and early gained the other step in
rank--and must now, by successive captures, have made a hand-
some fortune. . . ." (E, 33) thereby theoretically wiping
away Sir Walter's and Lady Russell's objections. When Anne
meets Wentworth's navy friends, she thinks:
. . . such a betwitching charm in a degree of hospi-
tality so uncommon, so unlike the usual style of give-
and-take invitations, and dinners of formality and
display, . . . 'These would have been all my friends,‘
0 o o (E, 94)

The navy men work and are quite frankly acquisitive;

they are businessmen. All of the admirable men in Persuasion

 

reflect these traits. Austen indicates quite strongly that
". . . doing useful labour and proving that one has done so
by earning money and professional success can give direction
and purpose to a life--a possibility which the early novels
ignore." (Nardin, in Monaghan, ed., 140-41) In a major
reversal of position, Anne worries that her family is not
worthy of Wentworth once they decide to marry: ". . . she
felt her own inferiority keenly. . . . to have no family of
respectability, of harmony, of goodwill to offer in return
for all the worth and all the prompt welcome which met her in
his brothers and sisters. . . ." (E, 239)

Thus, status, formality, and rank mean little to Anne
if they are not accompanied by sincere feelings and intent.
Being men of feeling, the naval characters make the most
interesting suitors. Captain Benwick is still recovering
from the death of his fiancee when Anne meets him, and he

exhibits signs of depression and melancholy. However, true

102

to the Austen style, Benwick revives quickly due to the naval
companionship and the visit of the Musgrove girls to Lyme.
Shortly, he becomes engaged to Louisa Musgrove which relieves
Wentworth, who has initially approached Louisa as a marriage
prospect.

Ritual plays a smaller role than usual in the court-

ship pattern in Persuasion. Two of the major arenas, the

 

Uppercross location with the Musgroves and the Lyme location
with the naval personnel, notably lack formality and court-
ship situations. Since they were once engaged, Anne already
knows that Wentworth is ". . . a remarkably fine young man,
with a great deal of intelligence, spirit, and bril-
liancy. . . ." which appealed to her as a girl. When Went-
worth left, she lost her "bloom" (Paris, 161). As a spurned
lover, Wentworth takes on an unseaworthy ship as his first
command, which intimates that he would not have feared going
down with it in his distraught state (McMaster, 39-40).
Wentworth must reintroduce himself as Anne's suitor.
This presents problems in this setting. Four situations
allow him to do this, and they reverberate with a repressed
sexuality. At the Musgroves, the child Walter climbs all
over Anne's back much to her discomfort. Wentworth steps in
and whisks him away,which indicates that he is responsive to
Anne. This is further demonstrated when he insists that,
after a lengthy walk, Anne go with the Crofts in their car-
riage because he knows she is tired. At Lyme, when Louisa,

through careless actions, falls off a stone wall and hits her

103

head, Anne reacts the most swiftly in the emergency.

Terribly impressed, Wentworth insists that she return to
Uppercross with him and Henrietta, Louisa's sister, to break
the news to the Musgroves. Doing this, he rewards Anne for
her actions and removes her from the certain job of nursing
Louisa,which is left to Mary and Charles Musgrove. Finally,
Wentworth overhears Anne's conversation with Harville on men,
love, and constancy. He realizes that she gave him up on
principle, not out of weakness, and in a letter, he professes
that he has continued to love her for the eight years of
their separation. Reestablished in each other's eyes, they
soon come together as lovers. Theirs is more truly a love
story than other Austen novels. Wentworth emerges as a more
romantic type than Darcy or Knightley. After all, he is not
only handsome and possesses good manners, but he pursues a
dangerous profession, has acquired a fortune by his skill,
and will go on living this way after the novel closes.

Again, there is no indication of how Wentworth will
act as a husband or father except that he will certainly be
absent at sea and be in danger. In reality, Anne derives
little security and permanence from this marriage, but she
happily anticipates being a navy wife and living in a navy
community at the close of the novel. She witnesses two
attractive husbands, Admiral Croft and Captain Harville. The
Crofts exist in a mutually happy union to which each contrib-
utes equally. Mrs. Crofts has spent much time at sea with

her husband which, most unusually, helps her share her

104

spouse's occupation. Captain Harville, injured on duty,
spends his time usefully employed in his small house.

Charles Musgrove, who once courted Anne, manages to endure
wife Mary's near-hypochondria and complaining nature through
a "civil and agreeable" sense and temper. Anne does admire
this. However, except for sport, ". . . his time was other-
wise trifled away, without benefit from books or anything
else." (E, 45) He seems to pay little attention to his son,
and when the boy takes a bad fall, Charles decides to visit
his family, much to Mary's distress. However, Anne indicates
that nursing belongs in a woman's province. In this society,
Charles' inattention here can not probably be taken as
neglectful.

Austen levels the most severe criticism of the
parental role at Sir Walter Elliot, "a conceited, silly
father," who is left with three adolescent girls at the death
of his wife. Anne retains a habitual respect for him even
though he neglects his duties. He is totally blind to Anne's
worth, criticizes her choice of friends as too lowly, and
keeps as a companion to his daughter Elizabeth a designing
widow, Mrs. Clay (E, 10, 11, 150). As mentioned earlier,
the prospect of re-introducing Wentworth to her father and
family mortifies Anne.

Sir Walter, as do so many Austen parents, neglects
his duties as role model and teacher. In this last Austen
novel, no male functions as a teacher to the females. In

this instance, it is Wentworth who must be educated. He

105

. . . must come to appreciate Anne's virtues and to under-
stand his own faults. . . . blindness and pride. . . ."
(Paris, 153-54) He considers Anne weak for breaking their
engagement. He could have married her when he first made his
fortune. He comes into her circle again to find a wife, but
he attaches himself at first to the trifling Louisa Musgrove.
He needs to overhear Anne telling Harville that men may love
strongly, but women love longest, before he is really sure

of his true feelings.

Despite this "blindness and pride," Wentworth emerges
as a dashing hero. This is primarily due to his actions in
the navy, but his other qualities slowly surface. Anne
recalls from their earlier courtship, "his own decided, con-
fident temper," "his own amiable heart," and his good manners
(E, 62, 88, 135). His sensitivity to her needs appears
through the four events described above. Interestingly,
however, Anne's description of an ideal man occurs when she
meets William Elliot, who has good looks, polished manners,
knowledge of the world, and family attachment. He is "steady,
observant, moderate, candid; never run away with by spirits
or by selfishness. . . ." (E, 135, 136-40) Anne continues
this favorable assessment, but she later learns through an
old friend, Mrs. Smith, that William Elliot is untrustworthy
and uses his looks and manners as a veneer for his opportun-
ism (E, 153). In contrast, Wentworth does not possess the
polished manners of the upper class, but he, along with the

naval community, bases his actions on ". . . generous,

106
kindly, sensitive feelings. . . . truly genteel 45u57 . . .

not always strictly decorous." (Nardin, 137) Presumably,
Anne finds all of the other qualities at first attributed to
William Elliot in Wentworth.

At the end of Persuasion, there is less security and

 

certainty then in Pride and Prejudice and Emma. It is not

 

clear what kind of a life Anne will lead or how long Went-
worth will survive; he can lose his fortune or his life.
Although women still depend on men and identify themselves
through men in relationships and marriage, the admirable men
now work at a profession. Austen criticizes men's loss of
responsibility and status as landowners while she holds out
the prospect of a new society run by men which is not based
on the land.

Considering Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Persuasion

 

 

by analyzing Austen's images of men leads to illuminating but
not always consistent conclusions. Two situations should be
kept in mind. First, Austen's family, class, and the histor-
ical time-period did have some effect on what she wrote. The
type of analysis which separates the literature from the life
and times of the creator is certainly valuable and has
enjoyed great popularity and esteem. However, reintegrating
the creator with her creations provides a more satisfying,
richer canvas on which to View Austen's works.

Austen came from a closely-knit family within whose
circle she remained until the day she died. It is difficult

to imagine that the development of her views on men were not

107

affected by the men in her family. Her father, whom she
regarded with great esteem and affection, played a large role
in her education. Her brother James, who became a minister,
also played a significant part in her education through
letters, shared reading, and the example of an Oxford educa-
tion, which her father also possessed. Edward, who was
adopted by wealthy relatives, was somewhat removed, but he
provided a home and visiting place for his mother and sisters
for periods after the elder Austen's death. Henry tried
careers in the army and business before bankruptcy helped
persuade him to try the ministry rather late in life. He
experienced a successful career change. Francis and Charles
entered cadet school and navy life as boys between the ages
of twelve and fourteen. They rose on merit to become
admirals,who participated in a glorious era for the British
navy. Jane corresponded regularly with all of the brothers,
maintained a life-long affection and regard for them, and
participated in their lives directly as she Observed them
pass through phases as suitors, husbands, fathers, and career
men.

Austen passed through phases herself. She experi-
enced, along with her mother and sister, the necessity of
being dependent on her male relatives for an income and a
home. Although she did enjoy a measure of success and income
from her books, these came rather late in her life. How she
wrote as a young woman of nineteen or twenty in "First

Impressions" certainly changed as she grew older and more

108

mature. She rewrote Pride and Prejudice at about age thirty-

 

seven, wrote Emma when she was about forty, and in declining

health, composed Persuasion when forty-one years old. In

 

those twenty or more years, her world had to grow wider, more
varied, and more complex through her own moves and her
father's and brothers' lives. Although she remained prima-
rily in a conservative, rural society, she also must have
become aware of political, economic, and social changes
developing in England after nearly twenty-five years of
intermittent warfare, which encompassed nearly all of her
adult life.

Secondly, authors exercise much choice of what to put
into their works. They also operate within various literary
conventions and according to their own vision. For purposes
of the plot or due to the requirements of the form, Austen
created men in certain occupations with certain personality
characteristics. For instance, despite apparently admirable
role models in her own family, she provided some silly clergy-
men and numerous poor husbands and fathers for didactic,
illustrative, or narrative purposes. At the same time,
certain men were drawn so that the heroine made a choice
between men who were "good" and men who were "bad," despite
the rather limited supply of real men who were so black and
white. In addition, although the reader is made directly
aware of the heroines' inner thoughts and outer behavior, the
men were seen only from women's viewpoints, through the men's

conversations with women, or through the men's actions as

109

reported to the women. Thus, men's inner life was not
presented, and they were seen only in social, domestic, home-
bound situations. Men's thoughts could only be inferred.
Along with this generally sketchy outline of the men, Austen's
own highly developed ironic style kept the reader aware of

the incongruity which Often existed between what both men

and women said and how they thought and actually behaved.
Thus, defining the men's characters becomes especially

tricky due to viewpoint and irony.

With these biographical and literary considerations
in mind, it is still possible to make some general observa-
tions about the male characters. First, propriety or manners
and conduct was extremely important in the male world. How
men related to people and things defined them to a great
extent. Towards people, they should show correct behavior
which included appropriate manners, speech, looks, and
demeanor. Towards Objects, they should show proper care of
material possessions, houses, and grounds. However, these
outward conventions could be dropped or modified if a higher
moral cause or true feelings were at stake. Outward behavior
was significant for the smooth running of a highly regulated
society, but it had to match or be congruent with inner worth.
Thus, a man reflected true propriety when he was honest; had
true, sincere feelings; acted responsibly towards friends,
relatives, and dependents; and carried out the responsibili-
ties Of his class. All of the Austen heroes (and the hero-

ines) reflected these traits,which were discussed at length

110

in the three novels.

Within this framework, Austen's men (and women)
carried on their lives. For male-female relationships in
general, Austen's ideal remained essentially the same in all
three novels, although the setting and class of the char-
acters changed. True, mutual,sincere feelings should regu-
late male-female relationships along with mutual respect.

Elizabeth remarked in Pride and Prejudice that love, personal

 

satisfaction, and regard for human qualities should dominate
marriages. The women in all three novels expressed these
same feelings. Realistically, however, women were severely
disadvantaged in comparison to men in the world. All three
of the heroines realized this and made specific comments
about it at some point, with Anne Elliot's statement being
the most complete. In consequence, then, women did marry for
status and financial security because men conferred these
advantages. Elizabeth gained the most, but Emma also
enhanced her position. Anne, on thinking about it for eight
years, still considered valid Lady Russell's advice not to
marry Wentworth earlier. She gained a great deal financially
when she did marry him, and his status was no longer a prob-
lem due to his wealth and navy rank.

As role models, men received a great deal of criti-
cism in Austen's novels. The great majority of husbands and
fathers were invariably weak, silly, neglectful, or even
harmful. But,because this was still a traditional society,

the daughters in the three novels retained a habitual respect

111

for their fathers and commented on it. Of course, daughters
had little opportunity or right to criticize fathers openly.
These failed role models could not all have been devices of
plot construction, thus Austen made a serious statement on
the necessity of men to carry out both familial and class
responsibilities. All of the admired men did just this.
Austen's ambiguous position on men as teachers may have
reflected the problem of male role models. Men did not
appear uniformly as teachers to women. As analyzed pre-
viously, Darcy learned from Elizabeth as well as teaching
her, Knightley did act as the significant teacher, and Went—
worth underwent all of the education. Austen marked out
clearcut expectations for men in society and criticized them
for failing to meet her standards as role models.

The most significant development over time of the
male characters occurred in Austen's presentation of their
occupations or professions. There might have been a majority
of bad husbands and fathers, but there were still some or one
good one in every novel. Austen was somewhat ambiguous on
her clergymen creations. There was no clear development on
men as teachers. However, the admired male characters and
some of the criticized male characters in all classes devel-
oped from men who did not work or were not seen working in
the early novels to working men with a purpose in the later

novels. In Pride and Prejudice, Darcy, Bingley, Mr. Bennet,

 

Wickham, Colonel Fitzwilliam, and Collins did not work. They

inherited or had been given their positions. None of them

112

earned their positions and,there was almost no discussion of
their positions as landowners, landlords, clergymen, or mili-
tary men. There was little or no separation between a work-
place and a home or between work time and leisure time. Only
Mr. Gardiner was an exception to this. The emphasis was on
what men were or on their characters, not on what they did.

In Emma, both admired and criticized male characters
worked. George Knightley, John Knightley, Robert Martin, and
even Mr. Elton, who was often absent on clerical duties,
worked purposefully at a specific position, even though they
still only reported their work to the women and were not actu-
ally observed working. Mr. Weston was the only nonworking,
favorably presented male character, but he had worked in trade
and earned enough to live a country life. The workplace and
home, work time and leisure time were more separated in Emma.

In Persuasion, the naval men represented a middle-

 

class, acquisitive, hard-working, professional group of men.
All of the men with positive qualities came from this group.
Thus, there was a clear development, as indicated earlier,

from Austen's three earlier novels (including Pride and

 

Prejudice) and the three later novels (including Emma and

 

Persuasion) on the subject of work and leisure time. In

 

addition, Austen moved away from the landed society alto-

gether in Persuasion. Workplace and home, work time and

 

leisure time were totally separated. And, interestingly,
Mrs. Crofts observed her husband at work, and presumably Anne

Elliot would share her husband's sphere, also.

113

In these three worlds, women still found their iden-
tities through men, still sought financial security and
status through marriage, and largely lived their lives
through men. However, Austen did not present stereotypical
men nor present the men with one set of character traits and
the women with another. Comparing the three novels reveals
a wider range of characters than at first suspected. That
is, Austen gave the reader a mixture of heroes: weak fathers,
poor husbands; a few good fathers and husbands; a range of
occupations; some men who did not contribute to the plot but
seemed to be good, amiable men; some positive acting and
good, amiable men; some men with positive and negative char-
acter traits; a few neutral male characters who did not seem
to embody positive or negative traits; and last, a number of
charmers and insinuators. On the other hand, Austen's women
shared many of the same character traits with the men. That
is, they also reflected qualities of honesty; true, sincere
feelings; and responsibility towards others, as well as
exhibiting characteristics of greed, silliness, and disingen—
uousness. Women did not carry out their lives in as wide a
public sphere as men did, but it was important for them to
behave in a morally and socially correct manner. What this
says about Austen is that, given the restrictions of her
personal and literary world, she created men who showed a
wide range of human qualities and who reflected her own
personal and professional development, as well as societal

developments, over a twenty-year span.

(j.

‘1.)

$1

In

L__l.

IV. CHARLOTTE BRONTE: ALIENATION

Readers of Charlotte Bronte (1816-55) know a great
deal more about her life and her work than they know about
Jane Austen. Austen rarely spoke about her writing in her
letters. Her sister Cassandra destroyed many of the letters,
and those that remain were written primarily to Cassandra
when they were apartlso there are numerous gaps. With Bronte,
however, a fuller record exists. Arthur Bell Nicholls, her
husband, kept many of her papers. Her lifelong friend, Ellen
Nussey, preserved all of Charlotte's letters to her. In addi-
tion some letters from another lifelong friend, Mary Taylor,
letters to her brother Branwell and her sisters from Brussels,
courtship letters from her mother Maria Branwell to her father
Patrick, letters to another friend Laetitia Wheelwright, and
some letters to Monsieur Constantin Héger also remain. The
developments of her professional life can be followed through
remaining childhood manuscripts and letters to William Smith
Williams and James Taylor, employees of her publisher, George
Smith (Shorter, 23—26).

These letters and papers document a remarkable and
tragic life, one that, although fully recorded, is still sub-
jected to much study. This record reflects Charlotte's strong

attachment to her home in Haworth (Yorkshire) and to her

114

115

family. Important connections can be made between the events
of her life and the life in her literature. Significant links
exist between the men in her surroundings and the men in her
literature; thus it is necessary to review events in her life
which affected her writing and the fictional men she created.
"Few great authors have been so tied by domestic con-
ditions as were the Brontés. . . ." (Offer, 12). The Reverend
Patrick Bronte, born in Ireland and educated at Cambridge,
married Maria Branwell of Cornwall whom he met while in an
early curacy. They became parents of Maria, Elizabeth, Char-
lotte, Patrick Branwell (called Branwell), Emily, and Anne
before they moved to the permanent living at Haworth in 1820.
I11 on arrival, Mrs. Bronte died at Haworth in 1821, leaving
Patrick with six children from age eight to under two. Mrs.
Bronté's sister, known to the children as Aunt Branwell, came
to the parsonage soon after to care for the family and to
remain until her death in 1842. Mr. Bronte never remarried.
Faced with a large household to support, Patrick
Bronte decided to send the oldest daughters, Maria and Eliz-
abeth, then Charlotte and Emily, to the Clergy Daughters'
School at Cowan Bridge. This decision, fraught with momen-
tous consequences, probably derived from Mr. Bronte's opinion
that he could better educate his only son rather than his
daughters at home. Interestingly, this reversed the pattern
Of children's education, since boys usually went away. As a
practical matter, there would be fewer children underfoot.

Finally, providing education for the girls would mean that

116
they might have a chance later to earn a living since the

incumbency at Haworth would not provide an inheritance.

In the next series of deaths to befall the family,
Maria and Elizabeth, while at Cowan Bridge, contracted con-
sumption and died within a year. Mr. Bronté withdrew Char-
lotte and Emily and brought them home in 1825, where for the
next six years, he took responsibility for the children's
education. During this time, the four children, prompted by
a box of toy soldiers provided by their father in 1826, began
to create a complex web of fantasy stories which claimed their
attention into early adulthood. Mr. Bronte fell ill in 1830
and this reminded Charlotte of the necessity of fitting her-
self for a job. She went to Miss Wooler's school at Roe Head
from 1831-32, where she met her two lifelong friends, Ellen
Nussey and Mary Taylor. After another period at home, Char-
lotte returned to Roe Head as a governess-teacher from 1835-
36, with Emily coming along as a student for a short time.
Anne replaced Emily eventually. Then, Charlotte moved with
the school to Dewsbury Moor, also as a governess-teacher,
from 1837-38. Emily remained at home.

During the period 1839-42, Charlotte received two
proposals of marriage, a serious one from Ellen Nussey's
brother, Henry, and one she interpreted as frivolous from a
visiting Irish curate who knew her one day before proposing.
During this period, Charlotte also spent two short periods as
a governess with different families. Extremely dissatisfied

with governess life, Charlotte determined to go to school

117

abroad for experience and language education with the hOpe
that the sisters would Open their own school.

In February, 1842, Charlotte and Emily crossed the
channel to Brussels to attend the Pensionnat Héger, a husband
and wife enterprise. Monsieur Héger became a significant
influence on Charlotte's life. The sisters returned to
Haworth for their aunt's funeral in October, 1842. Emily then
stayed at the parsonage, and Charlotte returned, as a teacher
this time, to Brussels in January, 1843. The next year would
be a most difficult time and a turning point in her life. On
her return to Haworth in January, 1844, Charlotte entered a
period marked by her growing awareness of a strong attachment
to Monsieur Héger while at the same time watching the ordeal
of her brother Branwell's dissolution and death from 1845-48.

The sisters, meanwhile, seriously worked on becoming
professional authors. Under the pseudonyms of Currer (Char-
lotte), Acton (Anne), and Ellis (Emily) Bell, they published
a book of their poems in 1846. To several publishers, the

three sent, together, the manuscripts of Emily's Wuthering

 

Heights, Anne's Agaes Grey, and Charlotte's The Professor.

 

 

Emily's and Anne's works were accepted, but Charlotte's was

not (The Professor was published posthumously in 1857).

 

Advised by the firm of Smith, Elder to try again, Charlotte

sent Jane Eyre which was immediately accepted and published

 

in 1847, along with Emily's and Anne's works which another

publisher printed.

118
A short-lived euphoria prompted by the success and

controversy of all the books and the mystery of the authors'
identities ended with the deaths of Branwell (who never knew
of his sisters' writing) in September 1848, Emily in December,
1848, and Anne in May, 1849. All died of consumption, with
Branwell's condition complicated by long use of alcohol and
drugs. This truly calamitous series of deaths seriously
interrupted but did not stop Charlotte's writing. Smith,
Elder published Shirley in October, 1849 and Villette in
January, 1853. From 1847, Charlotte experienced a rather
painful period of fame which brought little monetary compen-
sation. Afflicted with shyness, she nonetheless ventured
forth from Haworth to travel to London and other places on
various journeys where she met, among others, William Thack-
eray, George H. Lewes, Harriet Martineau, and Elizabeth
Gaskell. James Taylor, a member of Smith, Elder's firm,
became seriously interested in Charlotte who reported in let-
ters that she was attracted to him while he was apart from
her, but once he actually came on the premises, she experi-
enced revulsion towards him. She finally rejected the idea
of ever marrying him.1

By now nearly consumed with loneliness, despite brief
sojourns away from the parsonage, Charlotte accepted a pro-
posal from her father's curate, Arthur Bell Nicholls, who had

been at Haworth since 1845, an Observer of this remarkable

 

1Although most sources indicate he proposed to her, I
found no evidence of an actual statement of proposal by him.

119

family drama. At first, Patrick Bronte refused any consider—
ation of Charlotte's marriage to a mere curate. Eighteen
months elapsed between Nicholls' proposal in December, 1852
and the marriage in June, 1854. Entered into with great
reserve and trepidation, the marriage apparently did make
Charlotte content. However, this happiness, too, was short-
lived. After a wet walk on the moors in November, 1854,
Charlotte caught a cold which, combined with early pregnancy,
led to respiratory problems and aggravated morning sickness.
She died on March 31, 1855 at age thirty-nine. (See Gérin,
Lane, Peters, and Ratchford for indepth examinations of Char-
lotte Bronté's biographical and literary life. Lane "updates"

Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte and includes

 

most of Gaskell's text within her work. For Patrick Bronte,

see Annette Hopkins, The Father of the Brontés)

 

This sketch of Charlotte Bronté's life is extremely
important because its events are closely linked with her
creativity. From the time she was a child until she died,
everyday affairs and traumatic happenings covered a teeming
imaginative life. Part of her genius derived from her abil-
ity to combine her inner, imaginary world with her outer,
realistic world in such unusual ways for the period that
critics and readers concluded wrongly that she simply had
made up numerous incidents with no basis in fact. To the
world who knew her, she was the small, plain, shy minister's
daughter who lived quietly in the parsonage which faced a

graveyard, backed on the Yorkshire moors, and stood a few

120

hundred yards away from the Black Bull Inn. Those who visit
Haworth today have little trouble, however, concluding why
all of the Brontés wrote as they did.

In developing her various images of men, Charlotte's
views of men in general were certainly affected by her deep
interest in the Romantic movement. She grew up during the
height of the Byronic cult ". . . with its 'men of loneliness
and mystery,‘ . . . with their 'foreheads high and pale,’
which 'sable curls in wild profusion veil,‘ . . ." (Masefield,
130). The Bronte children were accustomed to expressing them-
selves, at least at home, freely, and they could read anything
they wished. In a letter giving advice to Ellen Nussey, Char-
lotte suggested all of the following authors: Milton, Shake-
speare, Goldsmith, Pope, Scott, Byron, Wordsworth, and
Southey; Bewick and Audubon for natural history; and Hume and
Rollin for history (Lane, 107). Both Tory and Whig newspapers

as well as Blackwood's Magazine arrived at the house. Char-

 

lotte also admired the artwork of the popular "annuals,"
3%" x 5%" boxed albums of prose and poetry plus a series of
engravings executed by John Martin which illustrated romantic
themes. Charlotte transmuted his representations of ancient
lost cities, in addition to engraver William Finden's works
accompanying Byron's poetry, into the pictures in the "Glass
Town" series (Moglen, 24, 25; Lane, 72, 75; Gérin, 5, 30,
41—49).

Fed by Romantic imagery and tales of popular polit-

ical figures of the era, such as Wellington and Napoleon, and

121

prompted by a gift of wooden soldiers from their father, the
four children created an extensive literature. Charlotte

chronicled: "Our plays were established: Young Men, June,

 

1826; Our Fellows, July 1827; Islanders, December, 1827."

 

 

Charlotte entered aggressively into the masculine world of

these plays, then took over the Younngen's Magazine estab-

 

lished by Branwell. Collaborating with Branwell on what
became the "Glass Town Chronicles," she dealt with war, poli-
tics, adultery, great escapades, intrigue, and murder. Even-
tually, when Charlotte went off to Roe Head School, Glass
Town was destroyed, and the two created Angria, which was
dominated by Zamorna, mainly Charlotte's creation, who was
aggressive, overly masculine, rich, tyrannical, sinful, and
adored by his mistresses. Charlotte, who had been writing
with the masculine pseudonym of Lord Charles Albert Florian
Wellesley, concentrated more and more on the theme of pas-
sionate love and withdrew more and more into her own realm of
creative freedom. She wrote, independently, many short
stories or novelettes.

The fantasy life continued to mesmerize Charlotte, as
well as Branwell and her sisters, who created Gondal, for
many years. Her years at Roe Head as student and governess-
teacher meant a tense dual existence for Charlotte: daily,
mundane duties combined with nearly hypnotic episodes of
"making out" as Charlotte's friends described her creative
periods. Finally, Charlotte made a conscious effort to end

. . . the violent, long-drawn, uninhibited daydream life to

122

which . . . éthe p1aye7 gave rise. . . . Charlotte in maturity
recognized the dangers of the dream and consciously broke out

of it, though not without anguish, and not before it had con-

ferred its curious bloom on many areas of her mind." (Lane,

78, 79) In late 1839, at age twenty-three, she decided to

abandon Angria and concentrate on serious composition (Lane,

82-83, 97-100; Peters, 20, 26, 39, 50, 98). The origins of

Imost of her chief male characters were certainly found in the

jtrvenile writings, however much they may have been modified

by' her later real life experiences with men. In addition,

Otfller characters and situations, such as the Reed family,

Inlczy Snowe's dream, Jane Eyre, Bertha Mason, Paulina Hume,

aIIC1 many more appeared in embryo in Charlotte's tales. (See

‘FEirlnie Ratchford, The Brontes' Web of Childhood for a
deatzailed, though not very interpretative account of the

c11:1lehood writings)
The rough, emotional, masculine lover of her fantasies

aJEEEected Charlotte's general views of men in her real life as

‘Veellg Throughout her correspondence, she commented on the

(iidfferent natures of men and women and the dependence of women

011 Inen. Letters to Ellen Nussey and Margaret Wooler noted

tl1étt men were strange creatures, to be envied, feared, and

Inistrusted (Letter to Margaret Wooler, January 30, 1876, in

31; Peters, 202, 203). She was

ShOrter, 133, 134; Keefe, 3o,

corl‘vinced that men, brought up and educated with few limita-
tic>ns on their activities, not only could pursue careers not

Open to women, but developed minds at once ". . . broader,

123

stronger, less censorious, more generous--and she felt at

ease with these qualities." (Peters, 84) She used her own
example to advise William Smith Williams to educate his daugh-
ters as well as his sons so they could be independent: "'How
should I be [If I didn't have a caree£7 with youth past,
sisters lost, a resident in a moorland parish where there is
not a single educated family?'" (Letter to W. S. Williams,
(Tuly'3, 1849, in Shorter, 395)

Thus, contradictory feelings existed in Charlotte's
miJld: attraction to strong, emotional, intelligent men which
inqolied a willingness to submit to them as superiors coupled
‘Wisth.the Opinion that women should be financially independent
lfrwom.men and intellectually equal to them. Throughout her
Juicfe, men with similar qualities attracted her. For example,
MC>rlsieur Héger, James Taylor, and Arthur Bell Nicholls exhib-
iiileed varying degrees of strength, emotion, dominance, intel-
lmixgence, and temperament (Peters, 199, 304; Moglen, 73,
232-33) .

How did these general views affect her feelings
tSDVWards marriage and men as husbands? Charlotte never
expected to marry, although marriage was still a central topic
in her life as it was for all women. For many years, she
e"“Dressed the same Romantic imagery that appeared in her

JuEfihenilia. When she was about twelve, she announced that she

Wot11d never marry. On the occasion of Henry Nussey's proposal

1‘1 1839, she replied:

124

I feel convinced that mine is not the sort of disposition
calculated to form the happiness of a man like you. . . .
I will never, for the sake of attaining the distinction
or matrimony and escaping the stigma of an old maid, take
a worthy man who I am conscious I cannot render happy.
(Letter to Henry Nussey, March 5, 1839, in Shorter, 295)

To Ellen, she proclaimed:

I had not, and could not have, that intense attachment

which would make me willing to die for him; and, if

ever I marry, it must be in that light of adoration. . . .

why, it would startle him to see me in my natural home

character; he would think I was a wild, romantic enthu-

siast indeed; I would not sit all day long making a

grave face before my husband. (Letter to Ellen Nussey,

March 12, 1839, in Shorter, 296-97)
Admout a year and a half later, however, Charlotte advised
.Elllen to consider marriage only with men of "common sense, a
good disposition, a manageable temper" and then only fall in
chrve, gradually, after the first year of marriage while making
Estlre not to allow her husband to become a tyrant (Letter to
£31.1en Nussey, November 20, 1840, in Shorter, 305-6). Char-
ILc>tte's real world intruded on her fantasy world. She knew
firill well that women lived in a disadvantageous position in
E3C>ciety, subject to the whims of fathers, brothers, and
husbands, however much they might be adored in fantasy as
w€311 as real life. Only rational, controlled, strong women
Inight check male rule (Perters, 95, 96).

Charlotte's comments on marriage continued in a

SiJnilar vein for many years. To whomever she wrote, she saw
Inatrriage only for women who brought money and beauty as bar-
gaining tools so that they might keep an emotional hold on

t1“heir husbands and retain a degree of independence. Other

WC>men should mark out a career, remain single, and be content

125
with their existence (Lane, 173, 200, 268; Peters, 147, 184;
Imatters to Ellen Nussey, August 9, 1846; April 23, 1851;
Iertter to W. S. Williams, June 15, 1848, in Shorter, 307, 317,
321-22, 383) .

Arthur Bell Nicholls' proposal to Charlotte came as a
gxneat shock to her and to her father. She did not love him;
hnasically, she had ignored him for many years. He had exhib-
isted few characteristics of her ideal lover, except for a
Ensignant and stubborn constancy once he made the proposal.
fPhis, perhaps, more than any reason other than her compelling
Iloneliness convinced Charlotte to accept him. Her letter to
IEllen announcing the engagement revealed her state of mind:

What I taste of happiness is of the soberest order.

I trust to love my husband. I am grateful for his tender
love to me. I believe him to be an affectionate, a
conscientious, a high-principled man; and if, with all
this, I should yield to regrets that fine talents,
congenial tastes and thoughts are not added, it seems to
me I should be most presumptuous and thankless. . . .
There is a strange half-sad feeling in making these
announcements. (Letter to Ellen Nussey, April 11, 1854,
in Shorter, 486)

Bronte had many good reasons for not entering into
marriage. Her knowledge of real marriages was quite limited
in that she observed almost none over a long period. Of her
acquaintances, Constantin Héger, William Smith Williams,
James Kay-Shuttleworth, Henry Nussey, and Elizabeth Gaskell
were nearly the only married people she saw at all, and she
saw them, except M. Héger, for periods never exceeding a few
weeks. She was intellectually superior to Nicholls and did

not agree with some of his conservative clerical opinions.

She probably feared a late-in-life initiation into sexual

126

.knowledge and knew that her frail physique could not stand
bearing children, although she had no idea how to prevent
becoming pregnant (and indeed she was pregnant within a very
few months) .

However, as Charlotte would say, "Reader, she married
Iiixn." Surprisingly, to her and all around her, the marriage
Erroved amiable. The stiff, statue-like Nicholls gradually
(iisappeared and was replaced by her "dear boy" who showed
Eiffection, consideration, and devotion to her. Nicholls also,
Ilowever, acted as a mid-nineteenth-century conventional
IIusband and controlled Charlotte's time to a great extent.
EShe commented on this several times in letters to Ellen,
:indicating both a puzzled pleasure in being kept so busy as
inell as irritation at being constantly in attendance. Despite
luer happiness and busyness, Charlotte's experience as a mar-
ried woman would have probably decreased her literary produc-
‘tion, even if she had lived for some years. Conjecture can
also be made that her literary perceptions of men and married
life would no doubt have altered if she had continued to
write. Certainly, her images would have been different in
her published novels if they had been produced as a married
woman (peters, 443-47, 459, 461-68; Lane, 303-6; cérin, 532,
551). Her fantasies, indulged in for so long a period from
teenage years to adulthood, probably fell far short of reality
and would have affected her writing, no doubt.

If Bronté had few real models of men as marriage

partners, she Observed her father and brother at close range

127
for many years. Her father Patrick Bronte and her only
tnnother Branwell loomed significantly in her life. Biogra-
pfiuers of the Brontés have altered their views of Patrick over
tiJne, but he still remains a controversial figure in terms of
hcnn he influenced his children's lives. For many years, the

donninant assessment of Patrick's relation to Charlotte derived

flnom his portrayal in Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Char-

 

}ggtte Bronte, which Bronte himself commissioned Gaskeli to
erite shortly after Charlotte's death and which he corrected
vvhen he found errors. But he never critiqued the overall
E>resentation of his character which Gaskell outlined generally
E18 ". . . an eccentric, domineering, selfish and irascible old
Inan." (Lane, 27) However, Gaskell's interpretation of him
(came largely from her visit to the parsonage late in 1853, a
19eriod when Patrick and Charlotte were not on good terms
loecause of the tension aroused by Nicholls' proposal and
'courtship. On the other hand, Mr. Bronte did have an iso-
lated, almost austere lifestyle in the midst of a busy house-
hold of children and servants. He ate nearly all of his
meals alone, indulged in a limited, bland diet, and retired
promptly at the same hour every night. Over the years, he
suffered numerous health problems, spent much time alone in
his study, and rarely traveled once he settled the family at
Haworth.

Whatever the Reverend Bronte's habits, his children,
of course, knew only one father, and their conception of him

was not as an eccentric. To them, Patrick Bronte stressed

128

education and, without doubt, he exerted a formative intel-
leuztual influence on all of them. Once returned from Cowan
Braidge, Charlotte and Emily joined Branwell and Anne for a
sicc year period at home. Patrick did not follow a formal
echacational program, but even before Cowan Bridge, Charlotte
as; well as the others read anything they desired from their
farther's library and discussed all the events of the day with
Iiim. He allowed them considerable freedom within the routine
<>f the household which they used to write reams of fantasy
tzales. A Church of England minister (he opposed Catholic
IEmancipation) and a Tory politically, he still stressed the
Iprocess and value of arriving independently at opinions.
.Apparently, he treated his own wife as an intellectual equal
and during his years as a minister he spoke out against ill-
'treatment of wives. He indicated sympathy towards the working
classes, and he supported the Reform Bill of 1832. His
stories of the Luddite riots very near where he had served as
a curate helped Charlotte in the later descriptions in
Shirley. He was probably more aware of the children's writ-
ing than long supposed. He knew they wrote stories, and he
heard the sisters read their manuscripts to each other in the
evenings. He took great pride in their literary achievements,
but, of course, enjoyed Charlotte's longer-lasting success
the most. He read all of her novels and made suggestions on
some. Perhaps his greatest contribution was simply allowing
the children to develop freely within the isolated confines

of the parsonage while making his library available to them.

129

The hesitation of all the children to leave home for any
.Length of time suggests the freedom and serenity they felt
truere (Lane, 27-29, 52-54, 70-75; Gérin, 5, 30; Moglen,
.24-—25; Hopkins, 61, 70, 88, 109-13).

Despite his contribution to Charlotte's intellectual
dervelopment, considerable for a female of this period, Patrick
Iironte did undeniably restrict Charlotte's movements.
TPhroughout her correspondence, she constantly referred to her
ciuties at the parsonage: "Her frustrated letters to Ellen
eabout the postponements and restrictions laid down by Papa
- . . begin a theme that runs through her letters all her
life." (Peters, 86) Concerns for her father's health, com-
Inents on his recoveries, and expressions of thanks dotted
laundreds of her letters to friends. She wrote to him regu-
larly when absent and provided lively descriptions of the
jpersons and sights encountered. These concerns, however,
ndght not necessarily reflect a tyrannical father. After all,
death was a common occurrence in this period and it accompa-
nied Charlotte from the time she was a girl of five. In 1849,
after the loss of Branwell, Emily, and Anne, within the past
year, she wrote to Ellen: "'After what has happened, one trem-
bles at any appearance of sickness, and when anything ails
Papa, I feel too keenly that he is the lEEE the only near and
dear relation I have in the world.'" (Letter to Ellen Nussey,
August 23, 1849, in Shorter, 230) Mr. Bronté's health remained
something of a puzzle. From Charlotte's first preserved

letter to him at age thirteen, his health was a constant

130

reference. Ironically, Patrick Bronte lived to the advanced
age of eighty-four, and he outlived not only his wife but

every single one of his children.

His health as well as his children's deaths did affect
Cfliarlotte's view towards her father. She often remarked,
Enarticularly after only the two of them remained, that she
cxauld not mention to him any illness or indisposition she
asuffered: "'I am too much disposed to be nervous. This . . .
.is a horrid phenomenon. I dare communicate no ailment to
JPapa; his anxiety harasses me inexpressibly. . . . Solitude,
IRemembrance, and Longing are to be almost my sole compan—
ions. . . .'" (Letter to Ellen Nussey, July, 1849, in Lane,
252) It is difficult to believe that the sense of ". . .
duty, subservience, sacrifice, and dependence. . . ." towards
her father did not affect her feelings in spite of her love
for him and her awareness that he feared she, too, might die,

or what might be almost as bad, she might marry someone and

leave him totally alone (Peters, 224).

These two fears dominated their relationship in the
years after 1849. Mr. Bronte often had forebodings of his
daughter's impending marriage, and he hinted darkly that this
would mean the death of him. When she informed him of
Nicholls' desire to marry her, he became nearly apoplectic.
However, as long as Mr. Bronte disapproved, Charlotte would
never marry even though she felt her father to be unjust.

Over the course of an eighteen month period when Nicholls

remained persistent, she eventually convinced her father that

131

it would be to his advantage to have his curate permanently
on the premises. Mr. Bronté's declared opposition focused on
the lowly position of Nicholls. Charlotte would be degraded
by marrying a curate when she, after all, enjoyed the repu-
tation of a famous author. However, Patrick no doubt harbored
a more serious opposition. He was convinced that she could
never stand the rigors of childbirth; much of his ranting
covered this fear. Once Bronte accepted Nicholls and the
marriage and honeymoon ensued, Charlotte re-established an
even stronger bond with her father. Events met Patrick's
‘worst fear, however, and ten months after the marriage Char-
lotte died (Lane, 287, 298, 300; Hopkins, 118; Peters, 343-
44, 374, 416-17, 439-40).

Charlotte matched the bond to her father with an
equally important attachment to her brother Branwell: "The
course which Branwell's life followed profoundly affected
Charlotte's personal and artistic development." (Moglen, 39)
As the only boy, his family expected great achievements from
Branwell, who at an early age like the others, exhibited some
literary and artistic talent. Patrick kept him at home and
outfitted him with a politically conservative and culturally
Romantic education. \Charlotte and Branwell established a
creative partnership when she was about ten and he about nine
years old which continued for many years. Branwell, in many
ways, existed as an alter ego. Through him, Charlotte saw
what it was like to be petted, to be indulged, to be active

in the world, to be "manly" (that is, to box, spend time at

132
the Black Bull Inn, to drink, and to take drugs). Spare

money in an economically hard-pressed family went to Bran-
well's education; the girls contemplated governess duties
not to earn income for themselves but to help put Branwell
through art school. For many years, Charlotte never doubted
Branwell's rightful place as center of attention in the
family.

Charlotte shared her fantasy life primarily with
Branwell. However, within a few years after the collabo-
ration began, Charlotte realized she held the superior talent.
She created characters modeled on Branwell,which at first
reflected a partly amused, tolerant creator: "Patrick Benjamin
Wiggins, the portrait of her brother she created half-
mockingly, half good-naturedly during these years [Early
1830'e7 falls something short of the dashing tough he imagines
himself. . . ." (Peters, 38) In the late 1830's, she with-
drew from Branwell's tales and created her own. In the
Angrian tales, she explored a brother-sister relationship in
"Henry Hastings," the new persona of Branwell. By this time,
Branwell's weaknesses had become apparent, and he failed to
establish himself in art school. "Henry Hastings" forecast
the eventual defeat of the protagonist (Peters, 38, 43-44,
48, 50, 77; Gérin, 139).

Charlotte accepted Branwell's reverses, however. In
addition to the conventional place assigned sisters in rela-
tion to brothers, Charlotte also imbibed the Romantic ideal

that women should expect and accept masculine weaknesses:

133

"Branwell could, after all, be forgiven. . . . Flaws--even
vices--were central to the romantic concept of masculinity.
It was part of the female's role to understand and overlook.
Patience, understanding, tolerance, duty--these were aspects
of the self-abnegating personality which complemented the
idolatrous needs of the masculine posture." (Moglen, 40;
Gérin, 131) In addition, a psychological case might be made
in favor of almost lover-like sentiments toward Branwell
which existed in Charlotte's mind. The fantasy stories
allowed Charlotte to explore possible sexual feelings towards
her brother and men in general which she could never fully
admit to in the real world.

Branwell did establish himself for short periods in
jobs; his longest tenure was as a tutor at Thorp Green for
about two years from 1843-45. As a male tutor, he lived
considerably better than Anne and Charlotte did as govern-
esses. He earned more money in his first post than Charlotte
did in her third, and his responsibilities consisted only of
teaching, not of sewing and caring for small children. This
position ended in disgrace, however, when his employer,

Mr. Robinson, dismissed him for allegedly carrying on an
affair with Mrs. Robinson (what "affair" meant in 1845 is
never really made clear in any of the Bronte correspondence).
Disconsolate, Branwell came home, never held another job,
and slipped destructively along a steep path of drinking
and drugs until his death in 1848. From 1845 on, Charlotte's

tone toward her brother changed permanently. If she accepted

134

flaws in his character earlier, she did not accept his behav-

ior in this episode. Charlotte's disapproval and disappoint-

Inent were not so much based on the fact that he loved Mrs.
Robinson or might have behaved in a manner not acceptable to
society. What motivated her feelings now seemed to be based
on two principles. Charlotte had returned from Brussels in
1844 following a year's experience which she perceived as
inattention by both the Hégers. She felt that Mme Héger had
turned M. Héger against her. Once again at Haworth, she
endured two years of silent suffering due to her continued
perception that Héger deliberately paid her little attention
and then rejected her. But, she mastered her feelings and
went on. Branwell did not, and he made the entire household
suffer. In addition, during the time of Branwell's decline,

all of the sisters made a decision to become professional

authors (and they each published a novel during this period).

Perhaps spurred on by the human wreck living a few feet from
them, the sisters determined to make use of their talents.
Charlotte never forgave Branwell for wasting what talent and
Opportunities he possessed.

Charlotte's letters to Ellen and William Smith
Williams did not mention her own sufferings of love, but she
penned an ironic comment to Williams: "'My poor father natu-
rally thought more of his only son than of his daughters. .
My unhappy brother never knew what his sisters had done in
literature--he was not aware that they had ever published a

line. We could not tell him . . . for fear of causing him

135

too deep a pang of remorse for his own time mis-spent, and
talents misapplied.'" (Letter to W. S. Williams, October 2,
1848; Shorter, 139)

Perhaps, as one writer suggests, Charlotte's develop-
ment as a writer depended on Branwell's decline. By involving
herself in his fantasy life and by pinning her hopes of
success on him she remained entwined in his life. By sepa-
rating herself from him once she realized the danger of the
hold of the fantasy world and the force of her own separate,
superior talent, she could establish her own personal and
creative identity (Moglen, 39, 58, 75-78). However, Char-
lotte had no means of divining the future. She began to have
doubts about Branwell's talent by the time she was thirteen
or fourteen. She started her own stories and characters when
she was about sixteen. She tore herself away from the
"infernal world," as she termed it, when she was about twenty-
three, while Branwell remained enmeshed in it. All of these
developments occurred many years before Branwell's serious
problems began in the 1840's. Charlotte's creativity did not
seem to be built on his gradual self-destruction. Her own
ardent, intellectual, and essentially independent nature
presaged creative development despite Branwell's example.
However, there can be little disagreement that he provided
for her much intellectual stimulation at an early age and
almost a textbook example of a debauched life lived under the
the same roof. The smallness of the parsonage and closeness

of family life guaranteed that Charlotte was not at all

136

jprotected from Observing many of the most intimate details
of Branwell's activities and illness. Even though she loved
him, in her earlier years with an almost desperate intensity,
Branwell probably contributed to her creations of flawed men
as heroes.

Besides her father and brother, the other male role
models most readily available were curates and ministers.
Charlotte's father, a staunch Church of England minister with
occasional tendencies towards a mild evangelicalism, and her
Aunt Branwell, a Methodist with Calvinist tendencies, provided
a strong religious background. However, despite many protes-
tations to the contrary of her attachment to the institution
of the Church of England, Charlotte disliked nearly every
curate who graced the neighborhood. Her father aside, Char-
lotte's first memorable experience with ministers occurred at
Cowan Bridge where she met the Reverend Carus Wilson, the

model for Brocklehurt in Jane Eyre. Wilson seemed actually

 

to be worse than his fictional counterpart in some respects.

He wrote periodicals such as the The Children's Friend in

 

which, for example, he related the death of a student: "'I
bless God that he has taken from us the child of whose salva-
tion we have the best hOpe and may her death be the means of
rousing many of her schoolfellows to seek the Lord while he
may be found.'" Wilson basically believed that children were
better off dead so they could remain sinless. These severe
religious sentiments, in addition to the mental and physical

suffering Charlotte and her sisters suffered under his

137
authority, caused in Charlotte a life-long hostility to him

and what he represented (Peters, 13, 15-16, 19).

Closer to home, a series of curates assisted Mr.
Bronte over the years. William Weightman, the first to be
mentioned in Charlotte's letters, appeared excellent in many
respects, but the sisters dubbed him "Miss Celia Amelia"
because of his auburn curls and frequent blushes. Charlotte
judged him at various times intelligent, interesting,
generous, Open, sweet-tempered, and cheery as well as hand-
some. However, he was also somewhat fickle and insincere in
his dealings with women. Since he was really the first male
outside the family who had a relationship with the sisters,
his impressions on Charlotte were important. Despite his
flaws, Charlotte preferred him to nearly all of his successors
(four of them before Nicholls arrived in 1844),whom she gener-
ally considered selfish, narrow-minded, pompous, and dull.

She bridled at any suggestion that she might marry one of

them. To Ellen she described them as "'. . . a self-seeking,
vain, empty race. . . .'" and "'. . . as highly uninteresting,
narrow and unattractive specimens of the coarser sex.'" (in

Peters, 413, 414)

Nicholls' arrival did not appreciably change Char-
lotte's view. To Ellen, she commented "'I cannot for my life
see those interesting germs of goodness in him you discovered;
his narrowness of mind always strikes me chiefly.'" Nearly
two years later, she wrote '"Who gravely asked you whether

Miss Bronte was not going to be married to her papa's

138
curate. . . . a cold, far-away sort of civility are the only

terms on which I have ever been with Mr. Nicholls.'" (Letters
to Ellen Nussey, October 9, 1844, July 10; 1846, in Shorter,
465, 466) Of course, she eventually did marry "papa's
curate," but his narrow views still continued to worry her
even after they were husband and wife. Charlotte, however,
always carefully distinguished between the Church of England
as an institution and the fallible men who occupied its posi-
tions. She was delighted when the neighborhood curates found
themselves in her books but dismayed when critics accused her
of lack of respect in the portraits. Letters to William S.
Williams reflected her determination to write freely about
individuals while she maintained her attachment to the insti-
tution (Letters to W. S. Williams, December 23, 1847; March 3,
1848; April 2, 1849, in Shorter, 407, 341, 392).

A woman in Bronté's geographical location and social
position did not often meet eligible men outside the family
circle except for clergymen. Her experiences with a wider
circle of males did not come until she went to Brussels and
later entered her literary career. Influenced by the Roman-
tic literature she read and the fantasies she created, it was
not surprising that Charlotte mentally often blended concepts
Of men as friends, men as teachers, men as romantic objects,
and ideal men, which would lead her to much soul-searching
and occasional deep suffering. Her relationships with
Constantin Héger, George Smith, and James Taylor all reflected

these feelings.

139

Freed from the parsonage and in contact with the
:Eirst adult, intellectual male she had met in a teaching
czapacity, Charlotte responded whole-heartedly by studying
Ciiligently in Brussels. As a teacher, Héger was well-known
£15 a dominating personality and a hard taskmaster. These
czharacteristics fitted Charlotte's personality and develop-
nnental stage well. She could be dependent on him and accept
111$ authority, but he was not her father or her brother. He
vvas a teacher, a "safe" man existing in a position somewhere
loetween men in the family and a romantic attachment. She
lueeded a friend, and so she always considered him in all her
Iletters to her other friends and to him; she could not admit
:Ereely pangs of sexual love for a married man which she began
'to suspect in her second year at the Pensionnat: "She saw
Iherself in all innocence as a devoted pupil who owed grati-
tude, loyalty, friendship--every emotion short of love--to
the teacher who had provided her first intellectual satis-
factions. To the fact that he was also a man of compelling
personality . . . she seems at this time to have been
curiously blind. When she awoke, at Haworth . . . it was too

late to change." (Lane, 176, 165, 175; Peters, 127-28, 130;
Moglen, 63)

In readers' opinions today, Bronté's interest became
sexual, even if it was not so at first and even if she did
not directly admit these feelings. Her letters to Héger, all

but the early ones unanswered, resembled her childhood

heroine's attachments to dominant men, pupil-master

140

relationships, and idolatrous feelings. When he wrote that
she should talk about her family and her activities and limit
her correspondence to every six months, she found it impos-
sible. When he stopped writing, Charlotte continued. Four
letters to Héger remain extant: July 24, 1844; October 24,
1844; January 8, 1845; and November 18, 1845. Excerpts indi-
<:ate that she grew from being puzzled about his lack of writ-
:ing to being increasingly more despondent to the point where
sshe considered his letters the breath of life itself. In
'the letter of July 24, 1844, she did report news of her plans
‘to establish a school, but her first line indicated the
:restrictions Héger had placed on their correspondence already
(Charlotte left Brussels in January, 1844) and how much she
(desired a letter from him:

Je sais bien que ce n'est pas 5 mon tour de vous

écrire. . . . je tacherai de ne plus étre égoiste et tout

en regardant vos lettres commes un des plus grands

bonheurs que je connaise, j'attendrai patiemment pour

en recevoir jusqu' a ce qu'il vous plaira et vous

conviendra de me'en envoyer. En meme temps je puis

bien vous écrire de temps en temps une petite lettre--

vous me'y avez autorisée.
As if to indicate to herself and Héger that his letters
should be from equal to equal and derive from his own wish,
she remarked at the close of this letter:

. . . vous étes trop bon pour oublier que je 1e désire

de meme--oui--je 1e desire beaucoup--c'est assez--apres

tout--faites comme vous voudrez Monsieur--si, enfin je

recevais une lettre et si je croyais que vous l'aviez
écrite par pitié--cela me ferait beaucoup de mal.

(Gérin, 583, 585)

 

By January, 1845, Charlotte had received no further

word from Héger and she admitted to him how much this vexed

141

her:

Mais quand on ne se plaint pas et qu'on veut se dominer
en tyran--1es facultés se révoltent--et on paie 1e calme
extérieur par une lutte intérieure presque insupport-
ableée/ Jour et nuit je ne trouve ni repos ni paix--si
je dors je fais des reves tourmentants ou je vous vois
toujours severe, toujours sombre et irrité contre

mOl. . . .

Charlotte began to enter into a pleading tone further on,
begging for some word, some 'miettes de pain' to comfort her:

Si mon maitre me retire entierement son amitié je serai
tout a fait sans espoir--s'il m'en donne un peu--tres
peu--je serai contente--heureuse, j'aurai un motif pour
vivre--pour travailler, Monsieur, les pauvres n'ont pas
besoin de grand'chose pour vivre--ils ne demandent que
ces miettes de pain qui tombent de la table des riches--
mais si on les refuse ces miettes de pain--ils meurent
de faim. . . . (Gérin, 586, 587)

Finally, Charlotte reached the depths of despair in

the last surviving letter to Héger, dated November 18, 1845:
Je vous dirai franchement, qu'en attendant, j'ai
tache de vous oublier, . . . j'ai cherché les occupa-
tions, je me suis interdit absolutement 1e plaisir de
parler de vous--méme a Emilie . . . c'est humiliant
cela--de ne pas savoir maitriser ses propres pensées,
étre esclave a un regret, un souvenir, esclave a une
idée dominante et fixe qui tyrannise son esprit. . . .
écrire a une ancienne éléve ne peut-etre une occupation
fort intéressante pour vous--je 1e sais--mais pour moi
c'est la vie. (Gérin, 587, 588)

Charlotte's sojourn in Brussels and these letters
marked "The biggest single experience of her life. . . ."
(Gérin, 255) These events indicate to a reader of today that
Charlotte knew little of the boundaries or etiquette that
mark relations with a teacher, a friend, and a romantic

interest. Her Romantic reading and earlier submergence in

her childhood fantasies gave her a language of romance which

142

startled the recipient of these letters1 and which seemed to
doom Charlotte to a life of unrequited hope. To Charlotte,
however, she communicated feelings to a beloved teacher, a
strongly desired friend, one who met her on an intellectual
plane that she cherished.

It took Charlotte about two years to undergo the
separation and to recover from her experience with Héger once
she returned from Brussels. She was particularly wary of
other men, especially once she entered into a wider circle

after the publication of Jane Eyre. George Smith, head of

 

her publishing firm, no doubt attracted her, and she commented
on him in letters to Ellen. She visited him and his mother

a few times in London. Only twenty-four when they met, Smith
was too young for Charlotte at thirty-two in her estimation.
However, she continually forced herself to crush her emotions
for him. To Ellen, she wrote: "'Were there no vast barrier
of age, fortune, . . . there is perhaps enough personal
regard to make things possible which are now impossible. If
men and women married because they like each others' temper,
look, conversation, nature . . . the chance you allude to
might be admitted as a chance--but other reasons regulate
matrimony. . . .'" (in Peters, 368) Smith always remained
charming and cordial, but he was not pleased with his and his

mother's portraits as John Graham Bretton and Mrs. Bretton in

 

lHéger tore up the letters which were recovered and
put back together by his wife who apparently thought she
might need them one day as evidence of Charlotte's feelings
and Héger's innocence. The Hégers' reactions were passed
on to family members who reported them to Clement Shorter.

143'

Villete. Author and publisher's relationship slowly withered
after its completion. Charlotte portrayed Graham Bretton as
capable and charming but rather egocentric and superficial.
Interestingly, Smith paid Bronte poorly for her novels; she
received the same fee of 500 pounds for each book. In 1859,
he offered Thackeray 4,200 pounds for a twelve part novel;

in 1862, 10,000 pounds to George Eliot for Romola serially;

2,000 pounds to Mrs. Gaskell for Wives and Daughters; and

 

larger sums to Mrs. Humphrey Ward in later years (Peters,
410-12).
Charlotte met two other men at Smith, Elder. William

S. Williams, the reader who discovered Jane Eyre, remained

 

an intellectual confidante. She wrote him nearly a hundred
letters over the years, and they reflect a far different
Bronte than is revealed in letters to Ellen Nussey. This
correspondence highlighted what probably remained her most
satisfying intellectual relationship.

A more complicated relationship developed with James
Taylor, another member of the firm. He grew to love Char-
lotte, but she could not bring herself to see him in a roman-
tic way. Unprepossessing physically and lacking "true good-
breeding" in Charlotte's view, he never failed to arouse
negative feelings and almost a physical revulsion in her. In
different letters to Ellen, Charlotte assessed him as "'. . .
of the Helstone order of men--rigid, despotic, and self-
willed. . . . Still, he is horribly intelligent, quick,

searching, sagacious. . . . though clever, he is

144

second-rate. . . . Were I to marry him, my heart would bleed
in pain and humiliation; I could not, could not look up to
him.'" (Letter to Ellen Nussey, undated, in Shorter, 430;
in Peters, 372; in Lane, 275) There is no indication that
Taylor actually prOposed to Charlotte, but her answer would
have been a decided "No." He did not measure up to her con-
ception of the ideal man. For Charlotte, the ideal man
combined aspects of intelligent friend, teacher, and romantic
lover, as well as being someone who had recognizable faults
but to whom she could give all of her love. Charlotte's
fictional heroes exhibited varying degrees of these charac—
teristics.

Charlotte Bronté's literary career followed a most
unusual path. In a sense, many of the major events of her

life were over by the time she began to write for publication.

 

She wrote from the time she was eight years old, however, so
she had already experienced the discipline, the practice, and
the frustration involved in writing. She had only to add her
emotional involvement in real-life events to produce her
adult novels. Although she collaborated with her sisters on

a book of published poems and sent The Professor to several

 

publishers, it was Jane Eyre which established her reputation

 

and which impressed readers, not aware of her prior writing,

as a remarkable first novel. In Jane Eyre, Bronté created

 

some of the most famous fictional men in English novels.

Jane Eyre depicts a rather narrow range of men's

 

activities. There are only two married men of note

145

(Brocklehurst, Rochester). Few occupations are illustrated
(the ministry, landowning, one doctor, a few servants). Only
Rochester is seen as an employer. No fathers appear (except
Brocklehurst) within the scope of the novel's action. Other
role models such as brothers, uncles, and cousins appear
briefly (John Reed is a brother and cousin; St. John Rivers
is a blood cousin whom Jane considers as a brother in many
respects). Because they are either employers, headmasters,
suitors, or relatives, no men take on the function of just
friends to any woman. St. John Rivers does teach Jane lan-
guage for a short period, but it is debatable, Ithink,
whether Rochester fulfills this teacher role. Bronté's use
of male characters focuses on them as holders of power and
status, as potential or actual suitors, and as reflectors of
moral standards.

Until the time she is about eighteen, Jane has
limited contacts with men. At Gateshead, she lives with John
Reed, has some contact with male servants, and talks to Mr.
Lloyd, the apothecary. At Lowood, she sees the Reverend Broc-
klehurst mostly from a distance. Only when she goes to Thorn—
field does she speak to a man for the first time for any
length of time. And, even in this circumstance, Jane is Roch-
ester's employee and his social inferior. Her general rela-
tionships with males, then, focus on their position as author-
ity figures and her situation as a dependent female. Much of
Jane's behavior, even towards the man she loves, derives from

this awareness of her social and financial dependency and her

146

great desire to be independent in a patriarchal society. In
addition, she has a tremendous need for love. Jane has been
seriously harmed in early life by her damaging relationships
with authoritarian males (and females). This, in addition to
her need for love, affects her views toward men. Male social
status and political power bear down on Jane. Her cousin
John Reed
. . . no one thwarted, much less punished; though he
twisted the necks of the pigeons, killed the little pea-
chicks, set the dogs at the sheep, stripped the hothouse
vines of their fruit, . . . he called his mother 'old
girl' too; sometimes reviled her for her dark skin . . .
bluntly disregarded her wishes . . . he was still 'her
own darling.‘ (JE, 17)
His mother, his sisters, and the servants assume his superi-
ority; he can even hit Jane without being punished. His
cruelty is accepted, but Jane's attack on him is considered
unjustifiable and excessive. This childhood experience
teaches her that men wield power and that being poor has no
virtue. She is well aware from the time she is a child that
men are essentially unrestrained in the world while women
must stay at home.

Jane's lessons continue at Lowood. The Reverend
Brocklehurst is an even more formidable enemy. Jane sees him
at first, when he visits her aunt, as a black pillar.
Accepted by many modern, Freudian-oriented analysts as a
penis symbol, this imagery of Brocklehurst might not be neces-
sarily accepted. To a little girl of ten (or to a sexually

uninitiated young woman in her early twenties), a tall,

black-clad figure might appear to be just this--a black

147
pillar. Cloaking selfishness, greed, and vanity in the garb

of religious principles, Brocklehurst literally exercises a
power of life and death over the girls. His actions as an
authoritative figure include wrongfully accusing Jane of
being a sinful girl in front of the assembled girls, ordering
a naturally curly girl's hair to be cut in defiance of con-
forming to nature, and deliberately (or at least without much
thought) allowing inadequate, bad food to be served to the
girls. Many readers, as indicated in reviews and letters to
editors,considered Bronté's portrayal of Brocklehurst to be
immoral and an attack on the Church. However, more impor—
tantly, he represents a corrupt, hypocritical use of authority
with an accompanying class and sexual bias. For example, at
the very moment that he proclaims against adornment and
indulgence, his wife and two daughters appear in the class-
room dressed in velvet, silk, and furs (JE, 65-69, 86).

Jane wins battles, however small, against both John
Reed and Brocklehurst, and her relationship with Rochester
is also marked by struggles between servility and independ-
ence. He is her employer and social superior; as a landowner
and member of an old family, he wields considerable power in
the district. In their second conversation, Jane grants him
command over her, but only on the basis of how well he uses
it, not just beCause of his age, experience, and social con—
nections (JE, 136—37). Pulled in by his personality and his
good treatment of her, Jane does fall in love with him, but

her initial thoughts revolve around the impossibility of this

148

relationship due to Rochester's status:
It does good to no woman to be flattered by her superior,
who cannot possibly intend to marry her; and it is mad-
ness in all women to let a secret love kindle within
them. . . . is it likely he would waste a serious thought
on this indigent and insignificant plebeian? . . . don't
make him the object of your fine feelings, your raptures,
agonies. . . . He is not of your order: keep to your
caste; and be too self-respecting to lavish the love of
the whole heart, soul, and strength, when such a gift is
not wanted. (JE, 162—65)
Mrs. Fairfax, who harbors other reasons for her disapproval,
indicates her feelings when the engagement is later announced:
"Gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their
governesses."(J§, 267) This awareness of status and power
never really leaves Jane's consciousness. In her relation-
ship with St. John, her final decision is to reject him
because he will repress her as a husband; he will exercise
influence over her through his status as clergyman and legal
rights as a husband which would eventually exhaust her
(Eagleton, 29-30; Moglen, 140, 146).
This issue of leverage within relationships plays
a large part in Jane and Rochester's courtship and period of
engagement. Jane succumbs to Rochester's magnetic person-
ality, seeing him in turn as an employer, then as a com-
fortable relation, then as a romantic interest, and finally
as a fiancé. Aware of her own developing sexual interest,
she continually attempts not only to control her own passion
but that of Rochester. For a proper governess and employer,
Jane and Rochester actually share many confidences and

physical contacts. He leans on her because of his sprained

ankle when they first meet; he leans on her when she informs

149

him of Richard Mason's visit; he takes her hand more than
once; he informs her of his profligate past life; she goes
into his bedroom to put out the fire (thus seeing him in
nightclothes); he directs her to go into his bedroom closets
and drawers to fetch clothing for Mason; they embrace each
other more than once; he kisses her right before his proposal
of marriage; and they kiss several times after she agrees to
marry him. This serves to arouse both of them, and it becomes
Jane's task to keep Rochester under control.

Of equal importance to controlling Rochester's
passion, however, is resisting his attempts to remake her.
As a fiancé, Rochester is seen as continually attempting to
treat Jane as a possession. He wants her to have family
jewels and to wear satin and lace. Jane's reaction is to
insist that he continue to treat her as the governess until
the marriage; in fact, she even proposes to remain a govern-
ess after they are married and earn her own way. She abhors
the idea of being "kept," and, significantly, shortly after
the engagement is announced, Jane writes to her uncle in
Madeira. She thinks:

It would, indeed, be a relief . . . if I had ever so
small an independency; I never can bear being dressed
like a doll by Mr. Rochester, or sitting like a second
Danae with the golden shower falling daily round me. I
will write to Madeira the moment I get home, and tell my
uncle John I am going to be married, and to whom: if I
had but a prospect of one day bringing Mr. Rochester an
accession of fortune, I could better endure to be kept
by him now. (JE, 270)

Many of Rochester's actions derive from his past experience

with several mistresses. As a wealthy man of traditional

150

upbringing, society allowed him to live a life of sexual
indulgence. For him, showering gifts on women was a natural
activity; Jane tries to teach him that this is not a neces-
sary nor even desirable part of the role of suitor. Despite
Jane's tendency to bow before her "master" and ". . . not

. . . see God for his creature of whom I had made an idol."
(EE, 276), she maintains her recognition of the dangers of
dependency.

St. John Rivers appears in the role of suitor for a
brief time, but his actions are dominated by religious prin-
ciple and martyr-like personality. Though handsome (blond,
tall, and Grecian-like), he is sexually somewhat tame. In
fact, he represses his own sexuality in relations with
Rosamund Oliver who loves him. Jane is attracted to him but
probably more due to his extreme religious dedication and
ambition which arouses in her a temptation to submerge her—
self in a dominant personality. However, even before Rivers
proposes to her, Jane crosses him off as a potential husband:

St. John was a good man; but. . . . Literally, he lived
only to aspire . . . he would never rest; nor approve
of others resting around him. . . . I comprehended all
at once that he would hardly make a good husband: that
it would be a trying thing to be his wife. (JE, 395)

His proposal focuses on Jane's mental qualities and
capacity for labor which suit her, in his opinion, for a
missionary's wife. Jane considers going with him, as his
cousin, but not as his wife. After her experiences with

Rochester, Jane knows what she wants in marriage, and it is

not St. John's suffocating masculinity:

151

. . . he asks me to be his wife, and has no more of a
husband's heart for me than that . . . rock. . . . Can

I receive from him the bridal ring, endure all the forms
of love (which I doubt not he would scrupulously observe)
and know that the spirit was quite absent? . . . I will
never undergo it. (QB, 407)

There are so few husbands in Jane Eyre that it is

 

difficult to construct a model. Brocklehurst is a husband,
but the brief glimpse of him indicates a man who sees his
wife and daughters as ornamented possessions. Rochester is
actually a husband throughout the novel, but he carries out
his functions as a husband, to both Bertha and Jane, outside
the action of the novel. The circumstances affecting both
marriages are highly unusual and point up one of Rochester's
purposes as a focus of the moral dilemma of the novel. There
are three aspects of Rochester's behavior which relate to
this dilemma. He has kept mistresses, he is married but has
kept that a secret from the rest of the world and Jane, and
he decides to commit bigamy by marrying Jane while his mad
wife lives in the attic of Thornfield. In a society which
accepted promiscuous behavior from men, his sexual activities
were not condemned. He admits to Jane that he abhorred this
phase of his life and after Jane discovers the secret of
Bertha, he indicates that his wanderings were really for the
purpose of finding a "good and intelligent woman" (which to

a modern reader seems self—serving). He also equates having
a mistress with owning a slave because both are "inferior,"

a rather revealing term to describe his romantic relations

with women (EE, 138-139, 143, 306-14).

152
Although Jane does not approve of his past life, she

is willing to overlook it; after all, she does agree to marry
him even though she knows about Céline Varens. Perhaps she
enjoys a vicarious participation in his past sexual life.
Rochester is a potent male figure, and Jane is a passionate
character. However, his lack of truthfulness about Bertha
and his willingness to commit bigamy force Jane to reject him
as a husband or as a lover. To him, his offer to support her
as his mistress and eventually to marry her in France trans-
gress a mere human law. To her, his offer reminds her of her
need for independence and an immutable moral standard; she
would feel inferior and as a slave if she became Rochester's
mistress: "I care for myself. . . . Laws and principles are
not for the times when there is no temptation; they are for
such moments as this. . . . If at my individual convenience,
I might break them, what would be their worth?" (JE, 319)

So Jane leaves Thornfield, despite her love for
Rochester and the fact that she forgives him in her heart for
his transgressions, for they are not so much aimed towards
her but at himself. Before Jane and Rochester can be
re-united in marriage both must undergo severe moral tests.
Jane must endure and reject St. John Rivers' compelling
personality and offer of martyrdom in a tropical climate.
Rochester must be blinded and lose a hand in the fire that
kills Bertha and destroys Thornfield. Properly punished for
his moral lapses and with Bertha dead, Rochester can marry

Jane. So,the marriage represents the reward for moral and

153

emotional growth by both partners and the culmination of a

"love-story." (Craik, Bronté Novels, 7l-72, 103-3) However,

 

two other considerations must be kept in mind. Before this
marriage occurs, Jane receives an inheritance which allows
her to give her cousins Diana, Mary, and St. John substantial
support and to be independent herself. And, just as impor-
tant, Rochester is in a dependent position when they are
married, and he remains that way for two years.

Jane's need for love but fear of dependence on an
authoritarian male are resolved because not only is the mar-
riage a physical and spiritual union of equals (from Jane's
testimony) but she achieves a certain measure of power over
Rochester.

Rochester is dependent on Jane in many ways through-
out the novel. At their first meeting, he leans on her for
support. She saves him from the fire in his bedroom. He
leans on her when he hears Mason has arrived. He seeks her
out to help when Bertha stabs Mason; he has to depend on her
to remain silent about this event, and he says to her,"You
too have power over me, and may injure me. . . ." (JE, 219)
After their engagement, Rochester says, "Jane: you please me,
and you master me. . . . I am influenced—-conquered; and the
influence is sweeter than I can express; and the conquest I
undergo has a witchery beyond any triumph I can win." (JE,
263) She restrains him from becoming too physically demon-
strative towards her, and this, "Mr. Rochester affirmed . . .

was wearing him to skin and bone. . . ." (JE, 276) When he

154
asks her to be his mistress, he becomes so emotionally dis-

traught that it appears he comes quite close to raping her.
But Jane controls the moment and not without satisfaction:

"I felt an inward power; a sense of influence which supported
me. The crisis was perilous; but not without its

charm. . . ." (JE, 305)

And,when Jane appears at Ferndean, her first decla-
ration is that she is independently wealthy. She chooses to
take on the task, however, to "rehumanise" Rochester and act
as his eyes and good arm: "I love you better now, when I can
really be useful to you, than I did in your state of proud
independence, when you disdained every part but that of the
giver and the protector." (JE, 449) After the marriage,
Jane relates: "Mr. Rochester continued blind the first two
years . . . perhaps it was that circumstance that drew us so
very near . . . I was then his vision, as I am still his
right hand. Literally, I was . . . the apple of his eye.

He saw nature--he saw books through me. . . ." (JE, 454)

He remains to her, however, her "master," the ideal
man of deep feeling and stormy moods, intelligence and shared
interests. He is essentially a good man,whom fate has dealt
a tragic blow. Jane feels a kinship towards him. They are
both responsive to nature,and they are both outsiders of
society in many ways. But, it is only through his moral
flaws, gradually developed conscience, and loss of power that
he becomes a satisfactory partner for Jane:

. . . the reduction of Rochester's virility and the
removal of them both from contact with society are

155
necessary to maintain the integrity of the emergent
female self. Rochester is brought into the 'female'
world of love and morality, out of the 'masculine'
universe of power. . . . (Moglen, 143)
In this sense, Rochester receives the greater education.
Although Bronté's heroes are typically seen as fatherly,

teacher-type men, evidence indicates that the heroes in Jane

Eyre, Shirley, and even Villette receive as much as or more

 

of an education than do the women. This is the experience of
both Robert and Louis Moore in Shirley.

Unusual circumstances surrounded the composition of
Shirley. It is clear from her letters that Charlotte delib-
erately attempted to write a book for the market, that is,
one intended to deal with the "woman question" and with con-
temporary industrial unrest. In doing this, Bronté included
in the novel many general observations about the plight of
mid-nineteenth-century women and their relations to men.
Additionally, she abandoned the use of the first person
female narrator. Readers immediately notice that men, the
curates who open the novel, speak among themselves. No women
are present here or at certain other places in the novel.
Thus, in several instances, there is no attempt to see the
men through women's eyes, which required that Bronté at least
try to create the perception that she "saw" men as completely
and accurately as she saw women. The action and much of the
plot belong to the men. Second, Shirley's appearance marked
one of the earliest attempts to deal with social change caused
by the Industrial Revolution. Finally, between the time of

Louis Moore's appearance and the chapter titled "The Valley

156
of the Shadow of Death," Charlotte's brother Branwell and her

two remaining sisters, Emily and Anne, died. Critics of the
novel argue that the deaths altered the characters, the struc-
ture, and the tone. For example, from this perspective,~
Shirley becomes more like Emily as the novel progresses; the
novel's structure is not harmonious; and the mood darkens or
becomes more somber. A critique of structure and character

is not a main focus here, but the circumstances surrounding
the novel's creation should be kept in mind.

Bronte still presents few men as husbands, fathers,
or brothers. Hiram Yorke is the only important married man
in the action of the novel (Joe Scott and William Farren are
also husbands); Matthewston Helstone is a widower. Yorke is
also the only significant father. Helstone and Sympson appear
in biting portraits as uncles. Bronté provides some landown-
ers (Yorke and two of Shirley's suitors, Samuel Wynne and
Philip Nunnely); several clergymen, a millowner (Robert
Moore), a teacher (Louis Moore), and some workingmen (Joe
Scott, William Farren). Some young boys, Yorke's sons, also
appear. Despite the inclusion of the millowner-working class
element (which is highly significant), this is still a rather
narrow range of male activities.

"Nowhere else did Charlotte portray the contrast
between man's active and women's passive lives so vividly."
(Peters, 319) This active-passive contrast defines women's
general relationship with men throughout Shirley. Caroline
and Shirley independently as well as in conversations with

each other comment often on the separation of women's and

157
men's lives. This different existence makes men and women

mysteries to one another and makes it difficult for them to
communicate. Men are always the "significant other" for
women. Men are complete within themselves because they work,
they have responsibilities, they can move about freely, and
they have status. Men think little about women and stride in
and out of their lives with impunity. Caroline, in love with
her cousin Robert,

mused over the mystery of 'business,' . . . endeavored

to realise the state of mind of a 'man of business,‘

. . . 'Different, indeed,‘ she concluded, 'is Robert's

mental condition to mine: I think only of him; he has no

room, no leisure to think of me. The feeling called love

is . . . the predominant emotion of my heart. . . . I

have to live, perhaps, till seventy years. . . . How am

I to occupy it? What am I to do to fill the interval of

time which spreads between me and the grave?‘ (S, 147-

49)

Robert, himself, agrees with this observation. To
Caroline, he says: "I find in myself, Lina, two natures: one
for the world and business, and one for home and leisure.

. . . brought up in mill and market; the person you call your
cousin Robert is sometimes a dreamer, who lives elsewhere
than in cloth-hall and counting-house." (S, 210) Caroline
astutely concludes that men could not and would not live the
lives of sewing, cooking, visiting, and husband-hunting that
they assign to women.

Shirley also experiences the dilemmas of men's and
women's separate existence. In order for her to function in
her capacities as landlord and millowner, Shirley is described

in masculine terms. That is, as a woman, she would not

usually be in these positions. When she is engaged in her

158

male activities, Shirley whistles, moves freely, imagines
herself as a soldier, refers to herself as a man, and is
referred to as a man. For example, Helstone refers to her

as a man after their conversation about her duties as a land-
lord. A second instance occurs when Shirley analyzes the
women in the area as potential wives from a masculine perspec-
tive. In a third example, Shirley is in masculine guise when
she is dispensing several hundred pounds for charitable
efforts with the help of the senior clergymen. Significantly,
there are no more masculine references to Shirley once Louis
Moore appears on the scene; she becomes more and more "femi-
nine."

Shirley refers to men as superior beings, and she
rhapsodizes on the perfect male. However, she also believes
that men interfere with relationships between women once the
men appear on the scene (Shirley is concerned about her rela—
tionship with Caroline). She is convinced that men analyze
women incorrectly,and that ". . . women read men more truly
than men read women." (s, 285) She refuses to assign men
all available wisdom or judgment. Despite her status and
financial interest in the mill, Shirley is deliberately kept
out of plans to defend it. She uses her wits to learn when
an attack will occur, and, along with Caroline, watches the
battle--from a distance. This incident, more than any other,
perhaps, reflects the contrast between the active and pas-
sive lives of the men and women in the novel who live out

separate existences.

159

The men's and women's separate perspective can also
be seen in their attitudes toward marriage. Bronté provides
three views of marriage: marriage is a love match; marriage
is a union intended for improving wealth and status; marriage
is detrimental to the health and psychological well-being of
both women and men and is to be avoided in favor of a single
life. Varieties of characters reflect these positions. The
only one who changes significantly is Robert Moore, who
evolves from a belief in marriage for wealth and status to a
belief in marriage for love. Generally, the women believe in
love as the basis for marriage except for Mrs. Pryor, who was
treated badly by a drunken husband, and Mrs. Yorke, who is an
intelligent woman destined only to raise children and oversee
a house. Overall, the men are depicted as perceiving mar-
riage to be something of an interruption in their busy lives
or to be necessary for status and money considerations.

Louis Moore truly loves Shirley, but he certainly gains con-
siderably by marrying her. For all the characters, even
though women achieve status and a somewhat wider arena of
activity along with perhaps a measure of love, marriage is an
institution in which husbands are masters and women are
clearly subordinates.

All of the major characters contribute different
notes to these themes. Early in the novel, the curate Malone
and Robert Moore converse alone. Malone says:

If there is one notion I hate more than another, it is
that of marriage--I mean marriage in the vulgar, weak

sense as a mere matter of sentiment . . . some fantastic
tie of feeling. . . . But an advantageous connection,

160

such as can be formed in consonance with dignity of views
and permanency of solid interest, is not so bad, eh?
(S, 31-32)

Moore replies:

As if there was nothing to be done in life but to 'pay
attention,‘ as they say, to some young lady, and then
to go to church with her and then to start on a bridal
tour, and then to run through a round of visits, and

then, I suppose, to be 'having a family.'--'Oh, que le

diable emporte!'--I believe women talk and think only of
these things, and they naturally fancy men's minds
similarly occupied. (S, 33)

Of course, Moore i§ very occupied with a serious
financial threat to his business. But, he continues to link
marriage to his fortunes well into the novel. In a later
discussion with Hiram Yorke, Moore concludes that ". . . mar-
riage and love are superfluities, intended only for the
rich. . . ." His criteria for a mate include beauty, which,
with money, make a desirable woman. However, he would not
take an ugly woman with money! (S, 141) Since these dis-
cussions take place without women present, the reader is
supposed to conclude that these are these two men's honest
thoughts about marriage.

Caroline's uncle Helstone is presented as a true
misogynist. He is a widower whose wife, in essence, died of
neglect: "He thought, so long as a woman was silent, nothing
ailed her, and she wanted nothing. . . . He made no pretence
of comprehending women. . . . they were a different, probably
a very inferior, order of existence. . . ." (S, 53-54) He
ignores Caroline's great unhappiness as a woman with nothing
to do, and he advises her to remain single. Publicly,

Helstone acts politely, even gallantly, towards women, but

161

". . . at heart, he neither respected nor liked the
sex. . . . he liked to see them as silly, as light-headed,
as vain, as open to ridicule as possible; because they were
then . . . inferior. . . ." (S, 102-3)

Caroline, Shirley, Mrs. Pryor, and Mrs. Yorke are, as
Shirley once remarks, better at divining men than the men are
at analyzing the women. They all know that’whereas women
have one life (domestic)’men have two (domestic and the exter-
nal world), and that the men will only occasionally pay heed
to the women. Caroline desires love but worries that she
would not be able to command a long-term emotional interest
in her. Shirley sees the ability to love as only one crite-
rion and cautions Caroline to consider qualities such as
kindness, justice, patience, truthfulness, considerateness,
and conscientiousness in a possible husband (S, 178, 179).
Shirley knows she is a desirable wife, but she carries out a
bitter struggle with her uncle Sympson to avoid simply mar-
rying a man who is her social and financial equal. Shirley
does marry a man she loves, her former tutor, Louis Moore.
However, she also presents a case throughout the novel for
marrying a "master." This prepares the reader for her to
succumb, supposedly, to the masterly control of Louis and to
give up most of her functions as landowner and millowner to
him. But, there is nothing in the character of Louis Moore
that indicates a masterful personality, and it is so diffi-
cult for Shirley to lose her independence that she persist-

ently delays the wedding date. In this sense, Shirley

162

becomes a victim to conventional marriage standards.

Bronte depicts Louis Moore as enduring a considerable
struggle as a suitor before he becomes fully acceptable to
Shirley. He must carefully conceal his feelings for Shirley
because he is a mere tutor. He displays some of the typical
traits of a man in love,such as wandering about the house one
evening when alone, seeing and touching some of Shirley's
things, while he pines for her. He must abandon his position
as a tutor and command respect because he is a gentleman.
Uncle Sympson is so provoking about their engagement that
Moore attacks him and orders him out of the house (a "mas—
terly" touch on Moore's part). And, Shirley accepts him on
the ambivalent conditions that he not tyrannize her, that he
be ". . . my companion . . . my guide . . . my master . . .
my friend. . . ." (S, 492) Considering that Shirley rejects
Robert Moore, her match with Louis becomes somewhat more
believable.

Robert Moore undergoes an educational process through
three events before he becomes a husband. As indicated
earlier, he sees marriage as a possibility only for the idle
rich and fails to see, or at least acknowledge, Caroline's
love for him. He proposes to Shirley for two reasons. He
cannot believe her interest in him is due merely to friend—
ship, and he is in tight financial straits (Shirley has
already provided him with a loan). They are both rudely
shocked by his proposal and her rejection. Both realize that

it is extremely difficult for men and women to be just

163

friends in a society which teaches women to be inveiglers and

insinuators and men to consider women as prizes. Robert

tells Yorke, later, that,"I'll do it no more . . . never more
will I mention marriage to a woman unless I feel love. . . .
Credit and Commerce may take care of themselves." (S, 424-
25)

While away in London, Robert comes in contact with
poor, uneducated, out-of—work people who awake in him a sense
of justice which has been absent or deeply somnolent in York-
shire. He begins to connect Caroline's entreaties to him to
be more just to his workingmen with an awareness of her love.
Finally, Moore is shot and undergoes a languishing convales-
cence at the Yorkes before Caroline's visit to him promotes
an improved constitution and recovery. Caroline tells him
that she nearly died for fear she would never see him again.
In a parallel fashion, Moore nearly dies before Caroline's
presence makes him desire to live. Thus, Moore must make a
long journey and suffer like Caroline before he becomes a
husband. However, there is little indication that their
relationship will be different from the conventional marriage,
except that Moore asks Caroline to help him "do good" with
his money.

Shirley does not present a positive view towards mar—
riage, men as husbands, or men as fathers, brothers, and
uncles. Generally absorbed in their work, the men consider
the women's world as insipid at worst, only occasionally

interesting at best.

164

The men's occupations do claim nearly all of their
attention. This is as true for the working men of the novel,
such as Joe Scott, as it is for the clergy, the landowners,
and the millowners. Bronte presents two groups of clergymen:
the three curates Donne, Malone, and Sweeting; and senior
clergymen such as Helstone, Cyril Hall, and Dr. Boultby, some
of whom are sincere, principled ministers. The curates are
uniformly selfish, egotistical, silly, narrow—minded, and
interested in the power their positions command. The only
senior clergyman who occupies much space is Helstone. His
behavior exhibits such ironies as to prevent any sanguine
view of his character or profession. He dislikes women and
considers them inferior, but he is close to gallant in his
overt behavior towards women, and he has full responsibility
for his niece Caroline. He is a man of peace, but he carries
arms and has missed his calling as a soldier. He hates the
institution of marriage, but, of course, regularly marries
couples. Although Bronte also describes him as "brave, stern,
implacable, faithful . . . true to principle, honourable,
sagacious, and sincere. . . ." (SL 42» it is difficult to
find even modicum amounts of good qualities in his portrayal.

Helstone is an evolution of the three young curates;
all of them have great potential for becoming different ver-
sions of him. They are not appropriate men for a church
vocation. The three men deal superficially and disdainfully
with religion, with each other, and with those around them.

However, despite her opinions of the individuals within it,

165

Bronte does defend the church as an institution: "Let
England's priests have their due; they are a faulty set in
some respects, being only of common flesh and blood . . .
but the land would be badly off without them: Britain would
miss her church if that church fell. God save it! God also
reform it!" (S, 245)

Closer to the core of the novel is Charlotte's
picture of the man of business, the representative of the
merchant-industrial classes of England, Robert Moore. Except
for the fact that Caroline loves him, there is little to
recommend Moore for much of the novel. He is consumed by his
responsibilities as owner of a mill and is disliked in the
district, partly because he is foreign, but mostly because
his intention to install new machinery will cause much unem-
ployment. Despite an attentive sister and cousin, he pays
them little regard except to see them when he wishes and
ignore them at other times. As a type of the industrial
entrepreneur, he seeks to conquer nature and eagerly looks
forward to new inventions and progress (women in the novel
are close to nature; men are apart from it). He is alienated
from much around him; as a foreigner, he is disliked even
more. Financially pressed by the blockade of English goods
due to war, Moore seeks to end the war for practical reasons,
and he has no patriotic sense or abstract concept of duty
which guides his views towards conflicts (S, 32, 35-37, 116-

21, 143-44).

166

These circumstances separate Moore nearly totally
from the concerns of women and vividly highlight the pater-
nalistic structure of the society. Caroline is puzzled, dis-
turbed, and attracted by his activities. Shirley only enters
his world because she is his landlord and gives him a loan,
but he never considers her as an equal in business. The
women simply have or do nothing in their lives which is
valued as much as men's work: "Only men in this novel can be
saved by works. . . . Manhood, the guild which structures
the events of the novel, is a closed corporation existing
only for the benefit of its members. . . ." (Keefe, 141, 134)

Complicating the circumstances of Moore's business
interests is the effect of social status on characters and
situations. Robert Moore and his brother Louis Moore are not

nouveaux riches; they are born gentlemen who come from a two

 

centuries' old family trading tradition. The fact that both
men are in some distress (Robert with financial problems and
Louis as a tutor) does not erase their gentlemanly status.
Robert Moore's associations are primarily with "the establish—
mentf'which supports him in an effort to defeat the worker.
Even though Robert Moore comes to believe more in an idea of
justice for workingmen, the novel ends with Robert's vision.
Through marriage, Louis becomes a squire and will become a
political figure in the area. He and Robert divide the
parish between them, and Robert will build workers' cottages,
double the value of Shirley's land, and continue the indus-

trialization process. Squire and mill-owner triumph in this

167

scenario.

Neither Robert nor Louis mitigates the paternalistic
structure of the society. Hiram Yorke, the leading local
squire, maintains this structure, also. Although he speaks
about equality and is anti-authoritarian, Yorke's family life
is traditional. His boys have prospects, but his girls do
not, despite a rather "liberal" upbringing. Mrs. Yorke, a
bright and intelligent woman, is tied to the family as wife
and mother and chafes at the restrictions of marriage. Thus,
Bronte not only makes the separateness of men's lives clear,
she points to the well-known position of men as arbiters of
political power and social status.

Robert Moore remains the hero of the novel because he
is admired and loved by Caroline and thought handsome and
good by Shirley. He fulfills the women's desires, but he
also is a hero because he struggles against hardship and is
successful at the end of the novel. Finally, he is clearly
superior in looks, demeanor, intelligence, and principle to
Sir Philip Nunnely, the curates, Helstone, Yorke, and even
his brother Louis. Bronté examines him as both a private man
at home and a public man with other men at business. Bronte
also creates Robert as the person who changes the most through
education (Shirley may change substantially after marriage,
but this is conjecture). Robert learns lessons about love,
about the role of status, and about his role in society
through his experiences with Shirley, his trip to London

where he meets the poor and destitute, and his shooting and

168
convalescence. From his educational trials, he becomes a

more fit partner for Caroline who has been aware of the
lessons and acted as his teacher throughout much of the
novel.

If Shirley has a somewhat somber quality, at least
in the last parts, Villette is positively mournful. Written
when Bronte felt she could cope with her Brussels experience,
Villette's sense of oppression rarely lifts throughout the
entire story, even though three pairs of "lovers," their
changes in circumstances, and feelings move the plot: Lucy
Snowe loves Dr. John Graham Bretton, then Monsieur Paul
Emanuel; Ginerva Fanshawe flirts with Graham, then marries
the worthless fop Count de Hamal; Graham loves Ginerva, then
Paulina de Bassompierre. The main focus is on Lucy's rela-
tionships with Graham and Paul.

Again, the range of male activities is limited, if

anything, more limited than in Jane Eyre and Shirley. There

 

is one father, de Bassompierre, and one husband, Graham
Bretton (late in the novel). Brothers, uncles, and cousins
are non-existent. Graham and Paul are seen working as doctor
and teacher, and there are brief appearances by a priest. To
some extent, Bronte explores how men act as friends to women,
since both Graham and Paul function as male friends to Lucy
at certain times. Men act as suitors when Graham courts
Ginerva and Paulina, and de Hamal squires Ginerva. Paul is

a suitor to Lucy, also. Although situations which focus on

the importance of social status occurjand people in the novel

169

marry, men as the focus of status and search for a suitable
husband are not the main concerns of Bronte. Villette
encloses a narrow world where Lucy's nearly pathetic search
for love and acceptance receives the most attention.

In such a small world, Lucy has few contacts with
men. She knows Graham as a boy of sixteen and as an adult;
she knows Paul Emanuel; and she has brief contacts with
Paulina's father, de Bassompierre, and a priest. It is not
unlikely that she would love, for a long time, an engaging,
handsome, intelligent man like Graham Bretton without the
possibility of reciprocal love. It is not surprising that a
personality such as Paul Emanuel's would have a profound
effect on an inexperienced young woman, who represses her
personality and shutters her emotions. In both cases, Lucy
is operating on the idea of a general relationship between
men and women as one in which the men fulfill ". . . a gor-
geous dream of male potency with which she can fall in
love. . . ." (Keefe, 174), and one in which she cannot ". . .
avoid defining masculinity in terms of male domination of the
female." (Kennard, 105)

She sees men as creatures apart from herself. Her
lack of beauty and low self-esteem cause her to feel that men
disregard her: "Suitor or admirer my very thoughts had not
conceived. . . . into the realm of feelings, and hopes which
such prospects open, my speculations . . . had never once had
warrant to intrude. . . . I went to church and I took walks,

and am very well convinced that nobody minded me." (2, 115-16)

170
At the ball which followed the play, Bronte makes it clear

that men are potentially dangerous intruders into a vulner—
able female world:

In the ballroom, indeed, not a single male spectator was
to be seen who was not married and a father, M. Paul
excepted. . . . he was the soul of honour and might be
trusted with a regiment of the fairest and the

purest. . . . kept far aloof /were7 ; . . a small,
forlorn band of jeunes gens. T . T [Madame Beck says to
them7 'Vous ne passerez vous a moins que ce ne soit sur
mon cadavre, et vous ne danserez qu'avec la nonnette du
jardin.‘ . . . the admission 0: these rattlesnakes, so
fascinating and so dangerous /fit Beck's surveillance
instinctS7. . . . (y, l43-47T

 

Bronte reiterates this male difference and apartness, as in
other novels, on an occasion when Lucy and the other women
wait for Graham and de Bassompierre to return out of a snowy
night: "How often, while women and girls sit warm at snug
firesides, their hearts and imaginations are . . . forced out
by night to wander . . . to dare stress of weather, to con-
tend with the snow-blast, to wait . . . watching and lis-
tening to see and hear the father, the son, the husband
coming home." (y, 275) The sharpest example, perhaps, of
the male as apart or as the "other" is that Emanuel is a
foreigner and a Roman Catholic, both of which are anathema
to Lucy, who is very bigoted.

Since Lucy's world is so limited and Lucy acts as the
narrator, the few men she meets must serve in many male roles.
Graham Bretton and Paul Emanuel are seen at various times in
their work as doctor and teacher, as examples of power and
status, as reflectors of certain moral considerations, as

suitors, as friends, as dependent on women, and as ideal men.

171
Graham becomes a husband; only M. de Bassompierre is seen as

a father. He is presented in a familiar pattern of treating
his little girl as a little girl into adulthood, objecting to
her marriage to Graham at first, and considering men as
dangers to his virtuous daughter.

As a boy of sixteen, Graham is described as a "hand-
some, faithless-looking youth? who is "spoiled, whimsical"
(y, 27). His friendship with six-year old Paulina is a matter
of study for Lucy as is his relationship with his mother. He
reappears as an adult, now a doctor, when he comes to the
pensionnat to attend one of Madame Beck's children. Lucy
recognizes him as the man who helped her to the school on her
first night in the city. She does recognize him as Graham
Bretton, but the allusion to this is veiled. She does not
directly tell the reader his identity until she wakes up in
the Bretton household after her traumatic September vacation
experience, (2, 167-79L Now back in her life and a regular
visitor at the pensionnat, Graham becomes the object of Lucy's
deep craving for attention, friendship, and love.

It is unusual in this period to find doctors in
novels, but Graham is shown at work. His intelligence and
charm as a boy reappear in the medical man. Lucy accompanies
him on rounds and finds

. . . him hard-worked, yet seldom over-driven, and never
irritated, confused, or oppressed. . . . Cheerfully,
habitually, and in single-minded unconsciousness of any
special merit distinguishing his deeds-~he was achieving,
amongst a very wretched population, a world of active
good. The lower orders liked him well; his poor patients

in the hospitals welcomed him with a sort of enthusiasm.
(y, 197-98)

172

Lucy quickly points out, however, that Graham has a public
and a private personality. In his private life, ". . . there
is expressed consciousness of what he has and what he is,
pleasure in homage, some recklessness in exciting, some
vanity in receiving the same." (y, 198) This consciousness
of status and power affects Graham's treatment of women.

Even though he acts as a friend to Lucy by overseeing her
recuperation beyond the call of duty, by escorting her to
events, and by writing her a few breezy, newsy letters, he is
rather callously unaware of her growing feelings for him. He
never considers her as womanly or worthy of serious emotional
attention.

Instead, he acts stereotypically male by being drawn
to Ginerva Fanshawe, a superficial, attractive girl of some
status. An intelligent, respected professional, he is fasci—
nated by a female who enjoys the knowledge that one of her
major functions in life is to manipulate men. Rhapsodizing
to Lucy, Graham says:

She is so lovely. . . . such a simple, innocent girlish
fairy. . . . Graceful angel! Does not your heart yearn
towards her when she pours into your ears her pure,
childlike confidences! (y, 153—54)
Ginerva's character is so far removed from Graham's concep-
tion that Lucy is startled at the depth of his deception, and
in an uncharacteristic outburst, tells him so during one con—
versation. He acts in a stereotypical, lover-like manner
towards Ginerva for some time while trying to convince Lucy
to help him with his pursuit. Eventually, Ginerva's behavior

in public breaks the spell on Graham. Ginerva, who has not

173

loved Graham to any degree, snubs Mrs. Bretton at a concert
and acts overly friendly towards M. de Hamal, whom she even—
tually marries. Graham concludes: "Ginerva is neither a pure
angel nor a pure-minded woman." (Z, 218)

Graham's courtship of Paulina de Bassompierre pro—
ceeds more smoothly. He behaves in a standard fashion with
at first puzzlement and bewilderment, then with longing looks,
deep sighs, and inability to concentrate. Finally, he
declares his love to an equally sighing, lovelorn Paulina.
But, he still disregards Lucy's feelings by requesting her to
tell Paulina "sweet nothings" about their childhood while he
watches. Lucy refuses to do this and refuses to listen to
Paulina's raptures concerning Graham. Lucy is still too much
in love with Graham to be comfortable with him in his role as
suitor to another. In addition, she may simply dislike, as
many people do, observing or listening to two people in love:
"There is, in lovers, a certain infatuation of egotism. They
will have a witness of their happiness, cost that witness
what it may." (2, 412)

Even though Graham keeps a place for her in his life
after his marriage and "improves" (Bronté's term to describe
him), Lucy's view of him grows steadily more critical as the
novel progresses. Blessed with good looks, charm, and intel-
ligence, Graham remains a type of man who considers women
primarily for the purposes of fulfilling his pleasures and

needs.

174

Paul Emanuel, too, is chauvinistic. He cannot bear
competition from women (in one instance, he drives a female
teacher from the pensionnat), and he enjoys his status as a
male teacher in a school full of women and young girls. To
some extent, this chauvinism may explain his method of oper-
ation as a teacher, for he can exercise irritability, short—
temper, berating remarks, and domineering personality over
vulnerable girls and women without fear of being checked.
Notably, when he is giving a public lecture or appears in
public, Paul does not exhibit these traits. To Lucy, these
passionate outbursts are often fretful, but she responds with
energy to his aggressive personality as he teaches the chil—
dren and her.

Paul pushes Lucy to perform in certain ways which
fulfill his own needs. But,he acknowledges in her a reser—
voir of deep feelings which no one else recognizes, even
though he makes references to her need to be "kept down" or
tamed. Paul forces her into the play as a male courtier to
Ginerva's character. He attempts to insult her in front of
the class when she sits down to sew in front of him. He is a
tough taskmaster when teaching Lucy. As she progresses, he
pushes her to extremes until finally she gives up. The
lessons resume, but Paul acts much more subdued. He con-
stantly harasses her to go in front of the audience on exam
day to do a spontaneous French composition; this carries on
to the point where Lucy struggles to get out of a locked room

away from him.

175
This is hardly the portrait of a hero. Why does Paul

eventually take on his garb as an attractive hero to Lucy?
First, as Lucy eventually concludes, of all of her acquain-
tances, he analyzes her more correctly than anyone; he makes
several remarks about her banked fiery nature, and he is
aware when she is sad or wounded. Despite his temper, Lucy
and the others know he has a tender heart,which on occasion
he exhibits, such as on his fete-day and on the country
outing. Besides, she rather enjoys his displays of anger,
which make him more intriguing, and which she usually can
counter on her own, anyway.

He offers her friendship more than once, and he even-
tually becomes attentive in a way resembling a suitor. He
leaves her books and gifts, converses with her on her plans
for a school, and spends many hours in conversation with her
on varied subjects. They become comfortable with each other:
". . . the mutual understanding was settling and fixing;
feelings of union and hope made themselves profoundly felt
. . . affection and deep esteem and dawning trust had each
fastened its bond. . . . he would leave with . . . 'Il est
doux, 1e repos! Il est precieux, 1e calme bonheur!‘" (y,
427)

In addition, Lucy discovers that Paul carries an
honorable burden. He supports a dead lover's grandmother
(Madame Walravens), a priest (his old tutor), and a servant,
and has been doing so for years. The contrast with Graham is

vivid. Seen in Lucy's mind for some time as something of a

176

mysterious character, Graham has little substance. Presented
with forthrightness with all of his faults, Paul turns out to
be a man of great substance and with a true mystery in his
life. Lucy thinks, again in contrast to Graham, “How often

. . . has this man, this M. Emanuel, seemed to me to lack
magnanimity in trifles, yet how great he is in great things!"
(y, 383) Lucy's feelings for Paul grow remarkably with her
new knowledge: ". . . how good he was; . . . a stainless
little hero. . . . He had become my Christian hero. . . ."
(2, 386-87)

Finally, Paul loves her and provides her with a sanc-
tuary, a school she can manage as she pleases. He loves her
for herself. Still concerned with her appearance, Lucy says:

'Ah! I am not pleasant to look at. . . . Do I displease
your eyes mggh?'. . . . He . . . gave me a short, strong
answer—-an answer which silenced, subdued, yet profoundly
satisfied. Ever after that I knew what I was for him;
and what I might be for the rest of the world I ceased
. . . to care. (y, 466)
He gives her the school before he departs for Guadeloupe to
act as overseer for the Walravens estate. His interest in
her welfare ". . . broke on me like a light from heaven. . . .
I promised to work hard and willingly. 'I will be your
faithful steward,‘ . . . He was my king." (y, 469-70)

For Lucy, Paul journeyed from being a "dark little
man" to being her "king." He softened on the journey and
revealed his humanness. To Lucy, Paul's faults dimmed, and
he combined the traits of father, friend, teacher, suitor,

and hero which were unbeatable in her eyes. This is an

unconsummated match, for Paul drowns at the end of the novel.

177
But,for Lucy, who is not presented with much sexuality

(despite the references to her fiery nature), having Paul as
a physical husband is probably not particularly important.
Lucy resolves, to some extent, her antipathy to foreigners
and Roman Catholicism. After all, she does remain in
Villette for many years while Emanuel is away. And, she
separates him from these two traits because she loves him.
She also rationalizes that he is like he is because he is
foreign and of a different religion. They have contributed
to the personality who loves her and whom she loves. However,
Lucy also teaches, and even though she is no real competition
to Emanuel, by setting her up independently in the same
profession as he participates, Lucy does have some power.
Perhaps the combination of Emanuel as foreigner, as Catholic,
and as a competitor in teaching are too much, and this
explains Emanuel's death. In addition, Bronte herself, in
response to her father's wishes and her publisher's requests
to keep Emanuel alive, indicated to them that Lucy could not
be fully happy and would not get the man she loved. This
reflected, perhaps, Bronté's own frustrations in Brussels

and her lack of romantic expectations for the rest of her

life.

 

Although Jane Eyre, Shirley, and Villette can be
analyzed and enjoyed as independent works of fiction, knowl-
edge of Charlotte Bronté's life makes her novels and the male
characters she portrayed far richer and more intelligible

creations. From four major sources in her life cycle, Bronté

178

drew inspiration, models, situations, and incidents for her
characters.

First, her family, within whose circle she lived
throughout her life, provided unusually strong support. Her
father was an authoritarian, active presence until the day
she died. Branwell existed for many years as a creative
partner and alter ego. And, her sisters provided literary
support as well family warmth. At the same time, family life
could be severely confining and, no doubt, limited Charlotte's
exposure to many areas of life. Second, Patrick Bronte, him-
self university educated, gave Charlotte an educational back-
ground which stressed Romantic literature, politics of the
day, and a conservative or Tory inclination, while also
giving her considerable freedom in the house to develop her
writing as she wished. Third, her educational and govern-
essing experiences had great impact on her personal develop-
ment as well as providing her with sources for her writing.
Finally, her Brussels sojourn proved to be the most dramatic
incident in her life (other than the years of the fantasy
life and the deaths in the family) and became the substance
of two books.

The plain, small, isolated parson's daughter lived a
visibly traditional, rather mundane life on the surface. But
these four sources stirred within her a seething creative
imagination whose results in literary form made her an inno-
vator and purchased her immortality. Unconventional situa-

tions, expressed passion, less regard for society's

179

strictures, honest revelation of flaws in characters, crit-
icism of those who failed to live up to the ideals of estab-
lished institutions, and assertion of individuals' desires
and needs not only brought her fame but also severe criticism
by contemporaries.

With these biographical and literary notes in mind,
several conclusions on the presentation of male characters in
Charlotte Bronté's novels can be made. In some instances,
Bronté presents the men in the novels in pairs as alternate
choices for the women. Jane Austen did this, also. The
result of this pairing is often the existence of a set of
desirable traits in one man and the existence of a less
desirable set of traits in the second man. For example,
Rochester is dark, emotional, and passionate, while Rivers
is light, restrained, and sexually passionless. Jane opts
for Rochester's characteristics. In Shirley, however,
Caroline really has no alternate choice to Robert Moore, and
there is not a clear-cut dichotomy between Robert and his
brother Louis. Graham Bretton and Paul Emanuel in Villette
are not really Opposites, either. They are physically dif-
ferent: taller vs. shorter, lighter vs. darker. However,
both express emotion, although in different ways. Both are
serious professionals. Both tend to treat women as posses-
sions. Emanuel is a better judge of Lucy's character,and his
temperament is different than Graham's, and these are reasons
why he "wins" her. However, the men in Shirley and Villette

are not two sides of the same coin or presented in black and

180

white terms as all "bad" or all "good." There is more of a

dichotomy or a two-sided image in Jane Eyre in the presenta-

 

tion of Rochester and St. John Rivers. However, Rochester

is by no means all "good," nor is Rivers all "bad." To some
extent, Bronté seemed to be carrying on the convention of the
two suitors in which the heroine is presented with a choice
of two men who are physically different, whose personalities
differ, or whose values or principles may diverge. This
seems to be primarily for plot purposes, and it is not likely
that Bronte, who created heroes with important flaws, felt
men in real life split neatly into two opposing types, but
exhibited a mixture of negative and positive traits.

General observation of male-female relationships
reveals that women feel that love for men will conquer all,
or that love is all—important for happiness. There is a
strong tendency for the heroines to submerge their personal—
ities into the heroes' personalities and lives. Much of this
originated in Charlotte's juvenile writings, also. However,
despite this sometimes overpowering urge, the heroines also
desire identity, independence, and usefulness, and they
usually check their emotions with a strong sense of morality
and reason. The women also recognize that men are apart,
that they act in the world, and that there is an essential
separateness because of the different experiences of men and
women,which perhaps never can be bridged. The actions of
Jane, Caroline, Shirley, and Lucy towards the men almost

always bear out these generalizations and create much tension

181

within the heroines.

For their part in relationships, the Bronte heroes
are all older than the women, which gives them a considerable
edge in social and sexual experience. They also usually
express strong emotions, not only for their loved partner,
but about life itself. Relationships with women are not
usually of the greatest concern in men's minds, however. In
many instances, the heroines have to wait for men to enter
the feminine domestic sphere, or they serve as a prompter to
the men's emotions, or they have to exert pressure on the men
to come onto the plane of emotion with the women. As suitors,
men generally reflect traditional literary norms. They give
gifts (Rochester, Paul Emanuel, Graham Bretton); want to
spend as much time as possible in the beloved's presence
(Rochester, Louis Moore, Graham Bretton); handle objects of
the beloved (Louis Moore); sigh, moan, and groan considerably
(Rochester, Louis Moore, Graham Bretton); wax eloquent on the
virtues and beauty of the beloved (Graham Bretton); read or
write poetry and thoughts of love (Louis Moore, Philip
Nunnely). Not theoretically allowed release of sexual ten-
sion in any other way, the men act "lovelorn." The least
"lovesick" of any of the men is Robert Moore, whose love for
Caroline is slow to awaken and is not a consuming part of his
life. The men also tend to treat the women as possessions.
The women resist this attitude, and in some cases, they gain
enough independence or educate the males to overcome this

tendency. However, power over females in relationships is an

182

undeniably strong urge exhibited by all the major male char-
acters in the three novels.

The relationships culminate in marriage for all of
the heroines except Lucy Snow. Marriage is acceptable to
the heroes and heroines only for true love; questions of
status or financial gain that a marriage will bring are not
uppermost in the minds or actions of the major female char-
acters, although these concerns are subjects in all three
novels. Jane, the governess, marries a wealthy landowner,
but she brings an inheritance to the marriage. Shirley, a
wealthy landowner herself, marries her former tutor. Caro-
line marries a middle-class (though from an old family) busi-
nessman, but his risks are great. And, Lucy intends to marry
a professor who, despite being esteemed, brings burdensome
responsibilities with him. Although desiring independence,
the women make clear that their love for the men, not the
men's status, is the most important reason for marrying them.
Strong personal relationships dominate the progress towards
marriage of the main characters, but there is little indi-
cation that these marriages, although happy, will be other
than conventional male-dominated unions. Even Jane, who
acquires an inheritance and some power over Rochester, writes
of how she has submerged her being into Rochester and how
useful she has been to him.

As for the remainder of the characters, barely a good
marriage exists, and few intact families of mother, father,

and children appear in the three novels. This would not be

183

unusual in mid-nineteenth—century society due to death and
long absences by men depending on their activities. The
make-up of family life in the Bronté novels is worth noting.
The Brocklehursts and Jane's nurse Bessie and her husband and

children are the only complete families in Jane Eyre; the

 

Yorkes, the William Farrens, and the Sympsons appear in
Shirley; none exists in Villette. As a consequence of this,
few role models of husbands or fathers are on the scene.
Interestingly, perhaps the most "complete" male role model

is Graham Bretton of Villette, who acts at various times as

a son, friend, suitor, professional working man, and husband.
Such a dearth of marriages, husbands, and fathers no doubt
fit certain plot considerations, but this lack of positive
male role models also reflects Bronté's opinions and experi-
ences. She saw few marriages, maintained a very Romantic
conception of men,which probably no real man could match, and
generally referred to men as the 'coarser sex' in her letters
to women. Finally, it must be recalled that the image of the
family unit in Victorian times was just that-—an image, an
ideal. It would not be unusual for the portrayals of fami-
lies to fail to meet an ideal image.

Bronté does usually project a positive image of men
in their occupations or work life, except for the clergy, the
occupational group she knew best. Clergymen are uniformly
chastized for a variety of behaviors. Some are silly and
* pretentious;such as the curates in Shirley; some are harmful,

such as Brocklehurst in Jane Eyre; St. John Rivers suffers

 

184

from excessive zeal and religious principle in Jane Eyre;

 

Helstone is miscast in his clergyman role in Shirley. No
clergy appear in Villette except for a Catholic priest who,
along with the religion, is criticized. Bronte always
defended her attachment to the Church of England, but the
large number of negative portrayals speaks to her personal
experiences and to a clergy in need of education and reform
in England at this time.

Otherwise, Bronte portrays men involved in energetic

worklives. Even in Jane Eyre, where the rural gentry is more

 

of a focus, Rochester goes out on duties and is seen as a
good landowner from an old, respected family. Rivers also
assiduously carries out his clerical duties (as does Broc-
klehurst, even though he has a negative effect). In 1222
Eygg, what men Egg is more significant than what they g9.

In Shirley, men work and are seen doing it without women
present. The picture of the aggressive, acquisitive middle-
class millowner is very significant in this novel. Louis
Moore is seen as a teacher, and several landowners are
present, such as Yorke, Sympson, and Nunnely. The only posi-
tive portrayal of landowners, however, is that of Yorke, who
has several negative qualities as well. What men g9 as well
as what they EEE is quite important here, and Bronte is crit-
ical of men who usurp authority or expect rewards merely
because of position (such as her Uncle Sympson and Philip
Nunnelyb or those who seek to despoil the "natural order"

(such as Robert Moore). Bronte is not at all enthralled with

185

a whole nation of shopkeepers, and she frowns on material
gain for its own sake. Even though she gives good qualities
to Joe Scott and William Farren, her sympathies are not with
the working class, either. In Villette, one of the first
urban novels, men also work; Paul Emanuel is a teacher and
Graham Bretton is a doctor. There are almost no gentry types
except de Bassompierre and de Hamal. Again, what men S9 is
as significant as what they 232° As the novels progress, so
too,does Bronte progress in presenting a more complete male
character in terms of a working life. In Villette, there is
no question at all of what Paul Emanuel or Graham Bretton do,
for they are observed at their work. Lucy is also a teacher,
and this almost puts her into an equal occupational position
with Paul Emanuel.

Despite this one instance of near equality in occu-
pation and despite love matches in all three novels, women
remain severely disadvantaged in relation to men. There is
at least one extended comment in each novel on men's mobil-
ity, usefulness, worklife, wider horizons, and status in con—
trast to women's lives, regardless of the fact that Jane has
a job, Shirley is a landowner, and Lucy has a professional
life. All of the women express a desire to be useful, as
men are, in the world. Jane does have a role, first as a
governess, but then as a helpmate to Rochester. Shirley has
a role, first as a landowner, then as a wife to Louis,at
which point she presumably loses her former function. Caro-

line has no use or role until she marries Robert. Lucy

186

attains independence and usefulness,but only keeps them
through the auspices of a male. Thus, male advantages suffer
little diminution.

However, there is one area in which Bronté allows the
women advantages, and this is as teachers and humanizers of
men. Much has been written about the male teacher-female
pupil relationship in Bronté's novels, but an examination of
the primary male characters does not indicate that they act
uniformly or consistently as teachers. They may be older,
somewhat fatherlike, but they do not do all of the educating
in how to live a moral life or how to be an adult. In £222
Eygg, Rochester receives most of the education through expe-
rience and Jane's love. He suffers severe punishment for his
past immoral behavior. He also changes considerably due to
Jane's behavior towards him and their relationship. In
Shirley, Robert Moore also learns the most through experience
and the love of Caroline. From early in their relationship,
Caroline makes many comments to Robert on how he should
behave towards his workmen. Robert also learns more about
the problems of the poor on a trip to London. Paul Emanuel
is a dominating personality and teacher, but softens consid—
erably as the story progresses. Lucy comments that Graham
Bretton changes and improves after his marriage to Paulina.
All of these men profit by the "love of a good woman."

In situations where men act formally as teachers, it
is still questionable what the women learn. St. John Rivers

teaches language to Jane as she becomes ever more aware of

187

his personality. However, she knows what her own personality
is, and she knows it is not compatible with Rivers, who is,
however, portrayed as being especially aware of Jane's char-
acteristics. Louis Moore has been a tutor to Shirley prior
to the action of the novel, but he must cast off that role
in order to marry her. She also knows her own needs and
desires; Louis does not make her aware of them, and Louis
has much to learn as a newly-minted landowner. Shirley is
just waiting for the appropriate man to match her. Paul
Emanuel stretches Lucy intellectually,and she enjoys watching
him teach. However, even though he perhaps formally teaches
her the most, she also has an already formed personality.
She also becomes an excellent and respected teacher, and it
is not clear what part he plays in this development. She
knows what it is that he arouses in her. Emanuel does not
teach her emotions or intellectual acuity; he merely directs
or redirects them. Paul Emanuel probably changes the least,
but almost all of the major male characters are educated to
a great degree of morality, self-control, equality in
relationships, and humanness by the end of the novels.

This susceptibility to education and to change marks
EEEE of Bronté's description of the hero. For the Bronte men
have mixed natures; they are neither all bad nor all good:
"The Ideal Hero must be saturnine, faithless, proud, dis-
illusioned, masterful, melancholy, abrupt, a man of mystery
with a past. . . ." (Gérin, 89) Thus, Rochester (and Paul

Emanuel to some degree) are logical extensions of some traits

188

of Branwell and the conceptions of Byron. At the same time,
Charlotte admired rationality, self-control, loyalty, sincere
religious principle, and a strong devotion to duty, traits
which Lord Wellington, another hero, reflected (Moglen, 26).
St. John Rivers, Graham Bretton, Louis Moore, Robert Moore,
and Paul Emanuel incorporate some of these characteristics.
The heroes exhibit flaws, and they are dependent on women in
at least one situation. Rochester transgresses society's
moral standards; he becomes dependent on Jane. Rivers is a
martyr; he is made financially independent by Jane. Robert
Moore is too acquisitive and uncaring; he depends on Shirley
for a loan. Louis Moore has no status; he becomes prominent
through marriage to a woman of status. Paul Emanuel is tem-
peramental and domineering; he is tied to Madame Walravens in
a complex series of obligations. Graham Bretton is super—
ficial and callous; he depends on his mother for unstinting
love and support.

In the three worlds of Jane Eyre, Shirley, and

 

Villette, the men often struggle between Romanticism and
rationality: passion, abandon, and immorality fight with
self—control, exercise of reason, and conformity to conven—
tions. In general, the presentation of extreme Romantic
traits does diminish. Paul Emanuel exhibits his emotions,
but there is much less struggle between these emotions and
his rational faculties than there is in Rochester. Despite
this, the Bronté heroes, like the Romantic heroes of Byron

and her childhood, exist outside of society to some degree.

189

Rochester is alienated as a younger son who makes an undesir-
able social marriage, then flouts society's conventions by
taking mistresses. St. John Rivers leaves England for a slow
death as a missionary. Robert Moore is alienated from nature
and a foreigner in the land. Paul Emanuel has to leave Lucy
and his homeland and is eventually drowned. He would have
become alienated from his family and friends if he had mar-
ried a Protestant. Only Louis Moore, who becomes integrated
into landed society, and Graham Bretton, who remains inte—
grated in society throughout, overcome alienation from the
people and land around them. This alienation is one reason
why "society" as such is not so significant to many of the
heroes' and heroines' romantic lives. Louis and Graham, who
achieve or maintain integration, make socially good marriages,
but they, too, marry for love.

Sometimes,it is difficult to follow the line of
development of Bronté's male characters. All of the men,
except Graham,are alienated from society to some degree, and
the only one who really seeks integration is Louis Moore. In
this sense, Paul Emanuel is not much different than Rochester.
They both have a mysterious past and carry heavy burdens.
However, Rochester is a landowner, albeit a younger son, from
an old family, and he lives a life of leisure on inherited
money, much of it from his wife. His emotions are played out
on a grander scale, and the reader is uncertain whether he
will be able to control himself in his love for Jane. The

portrait of him on a burning mansion trying to rescue a

190

deranged wife cements this image of a man larger than life.
His internal struggles are a real contest between Romantic
excess and classical rationalism.

Emanuel is much more life-sized. He is a small man
carrying out a rather ordinary job in an urban, middle-class
setting. He is not particularly appealing. There is much
more restraint. Emanuel provokes no grand images. His out-
bursts of temper or irritability may reflect no more than
that he lives in a constrained, school atmosphere, largely in
the company of women. His outbursts may reflect his sense of
frustration at carrying a burden of financial support of
several people and being tied to a long—dead past. His out-
bursts seem more designed to win him his own way, and he is
never shown acting this way outside the pensionnat. Although
he has Romantic traits (dark, mysterious, emotional, flawed),
there is much less of an internal contest between Romanticism
and rationality. Paul Emanuel is in control.

In her own world, Charlotte Bronte also suffered from
the struggle between Romanticism and rationality. Her inter—
nal creative thoughts combined with her everyday life to pro-
duce the men in her novels. Alienated herself from much
around her, she sought integration through her writing. As
such, she projected many of her hopes, desires, needs, and
frustrations onto her male creations. The development from
Rochester to Paul Emanuel represented a long personal and
literary journey from an adolescent's fiery Romantic, hopeful
imagination to a mature woman's realization of what life, in

the end, could offer her in realistic terms.

V. CONCLUSION: FROM INTEGRATION TO ALIENATION

Before making a direct comparison and contrast
between Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, it is important to
recall a number of modifying circumstances mentioned in the
first chapter which affected them and their writing as well
as other women of the first half of the nineteenth century.
First, inherited and contemporary literary conventions as
well as restrictions on women writers certainly limited the
modes and subjects of female novelists. In addition, the
biographies of Austen and Bronté were closely linked to what
they wrote. This is explicit in Bronte and more implicit in
Austen. Because Austen's life is less fully known than that
of Bronte, it is necessary to search for the implied authorial
personality in her writings. Nonetheless, enough information
is available to indicate the effect of biography on her
subject matter.

Along with these two sets of circumstances, it is
very important to note an area of study which affects the
subject of this essay but which has only been mentioned in
the course of the writing. Matters of language and style are
ultimately reflections of a particular society, sets of con-
ventions, and the mode of knowledge of a certain era. A

group of writers including Michel Foucault, Jonathan Culler,

191

192

and Roland Barthes seeks to study how and why writers of a
particular time-period say what they do, as well as to remind
readers that they, too, bring more to the text than just a
knowledge of language. These attempts to seek meaning
beneath the structure of the language move away from linguis-
tic analysis and traditional literary criticism as techniques
of study and open up further avenues of understanding Austen
and Bronte as well as ourselves as readers.1

This is one area of further investigation which this
essay opens. In addition, while just scratching the surface
of the first half of the nineteenth century, this study also
leads to further possibilities. The method of analysis used
on Austen and Bronte, as described in the first chapter, can
be used on George Eliot as a writer even further along the
path of seeing men as alienated heroes rather than integrated
heroes. Later nineteenth—century women and lesser known
female writers throughout the century would also be very
useful areas of study for images of men. How class related
to portrayals of men has only been mentioned. Much more
study is desirable to understand how the institutions of the
family, religion, and education played a part in creating
and transferring images of men to women. Finally, nineteenth-
century French or American (or other nationalities) women

novelists would be excellent subjects for analysis.

 

1See Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge;

Jonathan Culler, Structuralist Poetics; and Roland Barthes,
Writing Degree Zero.

 

 

 

193

Further areas of investigation aside, a number of
valuable comparisons and contrasts can be made as a result
of the systematic analysis of Austen's and Bronté's male
characters. First, despite the differences in style, struc-
ture, subject matter, and time periods.of the two women,
which Bronté herself noted, there are many more similarities
among the male characters than might be at first observed.

Both Bronté and Austen confined themselves primarily
to men who ranged from the landed gentry to the middle
classes. There were few or no servants, laboring men,
skilled workers, or factory workers present on the lower end,
nor were there any upper nobility or royalty on the upper end
of the social and economic ranks. Some titled men, many
landholders, and professional men abounded.‘ This, of course,
reflected the positions, mobility, and knowledge of the
authors and reminds readers of the focus of the first half of
the nineteenth—century novels.

All of the male heroes were older than the heroines
and possessed experience which the women lacked. The men ran
estates, handled finances, and worked at various occupations.
Only in teaching could women "compete" with men. Presumably,
the men also had sexual knowledge or experience. Nearly all
of these experiences were legally, socially, or traditionally
closed to women. Generally, the men had little or no inten-
tion of allowing women into these areas, except as sexual

partners.

194

This combination of age and experience meant that
women did not participate in "male culture" (nor did men
participate in "female culture") which might be defined as
groups of experiences, traditions, mores, norms, folkways,
and institutions in which males (or females) exclusively
participate. Shirley entered into the male culture, but
only when she feigned male traits. Male culture thus
included, in the early nineteenth century, a number of pro-
fessional occupations (clergy, law, medicine), business, the
military, athletics, education at the university level,
public life, and leisure activities such as travelling freely
alone, being in bars or pubs, hunting, and engaging in sexual
activities. In contrast, men could not physically experience
menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and menopause. These
generally remained taboo tOpics in literature and society
well into the twentieth century and still fall into areas
which many men do not discuss comfortably or openly with
women or among themselves. Men also participated little in
childrearing.

The grounds on which men and women did meet was the
home--the woman's sphere. In all of the novels, the men
walked briskly in and out of this sphere at will, while the
women remained essentially confined to it. Occasionally, men
were forced to stay in the domestic sphere due to illness or
accident, but this was not their "natural" arena. Women, in
a sense, "pulled" men into the domestic sphere to meet on the

plane of emotions. Men allowed this and paid women by

195

considering their emotions: love and marriage became a major
price that men paid so that women stayed in the domestic
realm. Men's consideration of emotions never became their
primary activity or goal, however, while for women, emotions
often were more important than other aspects of life. Both
men and women understood that, the exchange made, the men
"got on."

Thus, not allowed into male culture, women did not
"know" men; the female authors never "knew" men, either.
Consequently, based on the range of men presented in the
novels as well as both real and fictional lack of entry into
male culture, the conclusion is that both Austen and Bronte
gave an incomplete rendering of men. They provided images
and not the reality or truth of what men were "really" like.
If their images are subjected to an historical reality test,
they would fail. However, their images of men remain as
important as the reality of men, for women's images of men
(and men's images of women) are as important to society at
any period as surely as is reality. The question here
becomes: is it necessary to be male to "know" men (and vice-
versa)? Other parallel areas which this question involves
are: must one bear children or be a father to know children;
must one be black, Chicano, or American Indian to know them;
must one speak another language to know another culture? In
all of these examples, images compete with reality in
arriving at knowledge and understanding, so images are impor—

tant to catalogue and analyze.

196

These references to "knowing" men, being excluded
from the male culture, and the subsequent incomplete ren—
dering of men raises a related question of whether Austen
and particularly Bronté were working out sexual fantasies
of men as male writers were (and are) accused of doing.
Sexual fantasies might be defined to include three parts:
images of desired physical appearance, images of what it
would be like to have sexual intercourse or other types of
sexual contact with the desired object (male or female), and
images of the object's desired personality characteristics.
The limitations of the time on both men's and women's writing
ruled out references to the second type of fantasy, except
that the numerous contacts between Jane and Rochester could
be construed as sexual. Both Austen and Bronte did present
physical descriptions of men which to them and to society at
the time either were attractive or came to be considered the
norm as attractive. In this way, they both reflected and
created images of desirable physical characteristics of men.
In addition, both of them presented certain men with a set of
desirable personality traits. However, many of the women
also exhibited these traits, such as sincerity, truthfulness,
warm feelings, loyalty, etc. In this sense,Austen and Bronte
did create sexual fantasies if the first and third parts of
the definition are used, because both described the physical
appearance and personality traits of the major male characters

which they approved.

197

Beyond these, there are distinct limitations to
interpreting Austen's and Bronté's portrayals of men as
sexual fantasies. First, they were confined to acceptable
literary conventions of how women could deal with men, which
has already been discussed. This generally meant that women
in real life and in the imaginary life of the novels were
not supposed to know about sex or treat characters in sexual
ways. This limitation Bronté objected to more than once as
she refused to ". . . think always of myself and what is
elegant and charming in femininity. . . ." Bronte was
roundly criticized for her passionate tone, portrayal of
emotions, and immoral portraits of the clergymen characters,
which were considered not only inaccurate and disrespectful,
but not what a lady should write about. Despite Bronté's
refusals to conform to many conventions, she still created
basically "desexed" clergymen as well as many older men,
except Rochester, as suitors and husbands who were effec-
tively less sexual and more fatherly than a man of near the
women's age. Despite much modern Freudian psychology,
feminist writing, and the acceptance of women having sexual
feelings and fantasies, it is difficult to read more into
Austen's and Bronté's subconscious other than that Austen
wrote according to a circumscribed code of writing and that
Bronte knew she had strong feelings, fed by Romantic imagery,
which she proceeded to inject into her juvenile writings and’
in less florid form, into her adult novels. I am not willing

to accept as standard interpretation that Brocklehurst and

198

St. John Rivers existed as penis symbols because they were
described as columns.

A second limitation, along with care in reading
modern interpretations into nineteenth-century novels, is
that there are, I believe, different perspectives operating
in male and female writers. Very broadly, many male writers
and men in general often fantasize women as "sexy" or volup-
tuous and desirable as objects of sexual intercourse (women
create men like that, too). However, along with this "sexy"
image often goes an image of women as sweet, docile, domestic,
weaker, emotional, subservient, incomplete without men, less
intelligent, etc., traits which modern psychologists analyze
as negative traits. That is, men do not want to be like this
which they consider inferior. Women, when analyzed, also
consider these as inferior traits. Significantly, and this
applies to both Austen and Bronte, positive traits include
mobility, having power, being strong, energetic, contributing
to society, being rational or in control, etc. Austen and
Bronté's men shared many of these latter traits, and many of
their women desired to have these traits and approved of them.
My conclusion is that Austen and Bronté's images of men,
especially Bronté's, were strongly affected by their desire,
as well as many creative women's desires, to be like men and
to do what men did. On the contrary, men's sexual images or
fantasies do not include being like women or doing what women
do. This difference in perspective significantly alters

conceptions of Austen and particularly Bronte working out

199
sexual fantasies in their fiction in the same way that men

are analyzed as doing.

Even though Austen's and Bronté's men entered fit-
fully into the domestic realm and considered it an inferior
realm to their world, they conferred legitimacy on this and
all other arenas. They legitimized children; ushered women
into adulthood through marriage; settled status on wives,
children, and relatives; and provided financial security,
even though heroines often wanted financial and "spiritual"
independence from male dominion. This is more pronounced in
Bronte where all of the women, except Caroline, could exist
by themselves if necessary. This legitimization by men
served to point up the severe disadvantages of the women.
-Both Austen and Bronte women could not do what they wished
and were not mobile. Since men conferred status, women
sought social and emotional identity through men, and the
women often sought "usefulness" as the only way to cope with
disadvantages. The form of usefulness changed, since Austen's
women, of course, never worked.

Austen and Bronte clearly indicated that age, expe-
rience, access to male culture, and conferring legitimacy
made men the builders of civilization. Men ran the estates,
conquered the land, sailed the seas, civilized the heathen,
remolded the economy, and created religious institutions.
Logically, this should have made them pinions of the moral
order, also. However, although this was true of Austen's

heroes, it did not necessarily characterize many of her other

200

men. And, in Bronte, two of the heroes needed moral educa-
tion by the women. Also, the men were often portrayed as
apart from or alien to the natural world. Austen's heroes
rearranged it, improved it, or sailed in it. Bronté's heroes,
except for Rochester perhaps, were alienated from it or
regarded it as irrelevant. The portrayal of the failure to
support uniformly the moral order and the separation from
nature which marked many of their men may well have been
reflections that Austen and Bronte found some problems, at
least, with the world that men created.

What men wgig and gig loomed significantly in Austen
and Bronte, for these related to their moral worth and to
their status as heroes. Heroes had to be congruent, that is,
their inner values, thoughts, and feelings should match their
outer behavior. This was especially difficult for Austen
and Bronté to indicate, since as further evidence of the
incomplete rendering of men, they seldom portrayed men
thinking, or the "inner man." Bronte dig present men alone
and in conversation with each other, but whether that made
the men more "complete" is unlikely. The social aspect of
behavior was particularly important to Austen, but in all of
her novels she allowed a certain laxity of adherence to the
social moral code in deference to a higher, natural law. In
Bronte, the heroes' inner feelings were more important than
outer behavior. The heroes were essentially good men or came
to be in the course of the novel, and this matched or came to

match their outward behavior. The best indication of the

201

match between inner and outer, what the men were and what
they did, became the marriages. All heroes married or would
marry based on true, mutual, sincere feelings of love.
Despite several statements in literary criticisms
and biographies, the heroes were not uniformly teachers to
women. The male teacher as a character served several
purposes in a novel. He could be on the domestic scene
easily. He could act as a friend to the women without being
in compromising romantic situations. Few male friends to
women existed in Austen and Bronte. Combined with age and
experience, the teacher-type male character reflected accepted
social and literary models of men. However, a quick review
indicates that in Austen, Darcy learned as much as he taught
Elizabeth. Wentworth received the education and not Anne,
and even though Knightley educated Emma, it is not likely
that her character changed much after marriage. In Bronté,
Rochester and Robert Moore needed to be morally educated and
Louis Moore had to learn how to be a landowner, even though
his formal role was as a tutor throughout most of the novel.
Paul Emanuel was seen in his teacher role, and he actually
taught Lucy. However, she took on the task of humanizing
or softening him, which Caroline and Jane also did for Robert
and Rochester. All of the heroines were sharp and more than
half of them acted aggressively. They were superior in many
ways to most of the people around them, and they certainly
were intelligent enough to know that society valued compliant

women or women who matched society's expectations of them,

202

which would include being taught by men. However, regardless
of outward compliance, all of the heroines equalled the
heroes in most respects, and, in all cases, the heroines had
to wait patiently until a man worthy of them appeared on the
scene to recognize and love them.

This aspect of recognition and love confuses the
issue of whether the heroes taught the heroines. The
heroines' tendency in Austen and Bronté remained one of sub-
mitting through love to the hero, and recognizing that the
heroine's social and economic identity would be found through
the hero. However, in all instances (except Emma), the
heroines knew their own emotional make—up, were quite aware
of the social and moral framework of society, and knew how
to behave in society. Thus, it was only in a minority of
instances that men actually behaved as teachers, that is,
formally taught subject matter to the women, taught them
morals, or taught them about the social and economic struc-
ture of society.

Because of this, Austen and Bronte projected consid-
erable tension into the novels. They, of course, were both
women who desired recognition and love, but they also
received education away from home, at home by male relatives,
and were self-taught. They knew they had superior intellects
and may often have resented the authority of men who tradi-
tionally considered themselves omniscient teachers of women.
But, to fit both literary and social conventions, Austen and

Bronte created heroes who gave the appearance of being

203

teachers, but very few actually performed that role.

This leads to the final comparison between Austen and
Bronte. Men were uniformly portrayed as poor role models to
an almost startling degree, except for the heroes. And in
Bronte, all of the heroes harbored serious flaws. Husbands
and fathers (as well as many wives and mothers) were nearly
all weak, lacked responsibility, were sometimes harmful,
reflected authoritarian traits, or were not present. Broth-
ers, uncles, cousins, and clergymen fared little better.
Good fathers, husbands, and other male role models did appear
in the "new societies" at the end of the novels, and in

Persuasion, existed in the naval society. Few positive mar-

 

riages or "complete" families (parents and children under one
roof) appeared in either novelist's works. In Bronte, this
trait was even more attenuated. Daughters respected fathers
or deferred to their authority, but the daughters of both
novelists were all more competent and more intelligent than
their fathers and manipulated them rather easily. As men—
tioned earlier, the "nuclear family" of our modern conception
would not have been common in the nineteenth century at any
rate, due to deaths, absences, and the custom of including
many family members and non-members in an extended family.
However, although some of these portrayals and situ-
ations reflected plot purposes and reality, this lack of
positive male role models indicated at least some discomfort
with the societal structure. For a society which prized

family life and was ordered on a hierarchical, patriarchal

204

basis, these images of fathers, husbands, and brothers
present on the scene were a blow to established society.
Neither Austen nor Bronte proposed solutions, but whether
purposely or unconsciously, they reflected a serious, sus-
tained criticism of society which had been going on since
early in the nineteenth century, and which often concentrated
on a criticism of bourgeois family life.1
Differences in time period, temperament, and life
experiences produced, of course, many contrasts between
Austen's and Bronté's male characters. Men's relationships
to society, to the women, and personal characters were
changing, not only in novels, but in society. In Austen,
"manly virtue" and responsibility were connected with prop-
erty. Both Darcy's and Knightley's character reflected their
status as landowners. Austen mourned the loss of manly

virtue connected with property and shifted the most attrac-

tive and desirable manly qualities to the navy in Persuasion.

 

This connection of character to property was not particularly
relevant to Bronté. Even though Rochester was a landowner,
this did not relate to his main character traits. Negative
qualities marked Robert Moore, a new industrialist, who

owned a mill. For Graham Bretton and Paul Emanuel, there was

no connection between owning property and their characters.

 

1In England and on the continent, for example,

vigorous criticism of bourgeois life, the subject of Austen
and Bronte, emanated from Charles Fourier, Robert Owen,
Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx by the end of the first half
of the century.

205

This relation to property reflected the men's rela-
tion to society. In Austen, this connection was far more
important. Being responsible, doing one's duty, displaying
proper manners, and being on good behavior in society marked
a gentleman. In Bronté, men's relation to society was less
significant. Marriage did not act as a vehicle for the
regulation of social life as well as the expression of the
individual as it did in Austen. Solutions to the problems
of the heroes and heroines did not rest in conforming to
society's standards or remaining in society. Major male
characters grew progressively more middle—class and less
concerned with matters of status in Bronté. The urban,
middle-class setting of Villette was far removed from the
estates of Darcy and Knightley. Above all, all of the Bronte
heroes were to some extent or to a great extent removed or
alienated from society.

Personal relationships and character also changed.
Power was much more evident as a factor in Bronté's men and
women. Since Bronté's women, except for Caroline, worked,
gained independence, or were independent, this might have
been why this element became more important. Power only
becomes an issue if two sides can compete on some level or if
one side resists power. All Bronte men desired to put down
or keep down women and to treat them as possessions in their
role as suitors. Power was not as much of an issue in
Austen's relationships. Women desired love, esteem, and

security, but they did not seek work or chafe at their

206

positions. Bronté's Caroline and Shirley reflected this
issue of power. Caroline served as an excellent example of
what happened to a woman without power. Shirley gave up
considerable power for love, but only after a great internal
struggle which was reflected by delaying her wedding. All

of the Bronte women suffered much tension as they struggled
between submerging their identity into the male and retaining
personal and financial independence. Despite this tendency
to submerge identity, Bronte reflected a greater awareness of
the apartness of men and women. Austen commented on this in

Persuasion, but it became more of a major theme in Bronte.

 

This may have reflected a greater frustration on the part of
women to be able to do things men did, or at least not to
have to wait for men to pay attention to women. This theme
may have also reflected that, in addition to the essential
biological separateness, men were more apart physically as
more work-places became separated from the home by the middle
nineteenth century. As urbanization increased, more profes-
sional men such as doctors and businessmen worked in hospi-
tals, offices, and buildings apart from the home. Working—
class men (and women) went away to work in factories instead
of working in or near the home in craft shops.

With regard to personal character, Bronté's heroes
displayed more flaws. Austen's Darcy and Wentworth needed to
be educated, but they showed almost all attractive qualities,
and Knightley was perfect! Bronté's men displayed major

problems and changed morally or temperamentally. Bronté's

207

men, in what was both more realistic but also related to the
Romantic influence, also evidenced more dependence on the
women——through injury, illness, finances, or position. Women
gained leverage this way, and emphasis on dependent situations
reflected men's and women's concerns with power.

Bronté's heroes, except Robert Moore, exhibited more
outward passion. Austen's heroes were warm and sincere, but
always in control. The Bronte men occasionally came close to
losing control and expressed feelings of love more openly.
For example, there is a great distance between Darcy and
Knightley and Rochester and Emanuel. Part of Darcy's problem
was that he did not communicate well and that he was consid-
ered reserved and aloof by Elizabeth and her family. The
actual courtship and declaration of love were quite tame and
compressed into a small time period. Knightley was portrayed
as such a fatherly figure to Emma that nearly the whole novel
elapsed before he considered her as an attractive, eligible
woman for him to marry. Again, the courtship and declaration
of love were very composed, restrained, and required little
time. On the contrary, as indicated before, Rochester's
expressions of love and need for Jane were numerous as were
his expressions of struggle to mute his passion for her. The
instances of physical contact between them abounded. Louis
Moore and Graham visibly acted "love-sick" toward their
intendeds. Paul Emanuel expressed his irritability and
temper, but he also expressed tender sentiments and solici-

tations towards Lucy. Some of the Bronte heroes' main tasks

208

were to gain in self-control and rationality as the novel
progressed.

Above all, Austen's heroes were all integrated fully
into middle-class society—-into its institutions, behavior,
and codes. Even the charmers and insinuators remained within
society. The heroes in Bronte (except Graham Bretton) were
all alienated to some degree; they were all outsiders and did
not necessarily seek integration into the society which their
collective efforts as the builders of civilization had
created.

Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte created fictional
societies and fictional men, but it is difficult to forget
that they lived and created within a real historical context.
Austen (1775-1817) lived within a period in which "England
changed more fundamentally than it had for hundreds of years
before." (Harrison, 22) Before the 1760's, England was
characterized by an agricultural life which was reflected in
a small population, a low standard of living for the majority,
a hierarchical social system dominated by rural landowners,

a property system dominated by primogeniture, and an aristo-
cratic oligarchy which ruled. During her lifetime, funda-
mental changes occurred; by the time she died, England was
about halfway through a radical social, economic, and polit—
ical transformation. Agricultural improvements, a number of
mechanical inventions, and changes in transportation acted
as both cause and result of a transition to dependence on

manufacturing and mining, large population increases, an

209

increase in urban centers in size and number, a great increase
in wealth, an increasing degree of social mobility, and a
desire for political democracy. In addition, Austen lived
through the American Revolution, French Revolution, and the
accompanying wars which resulted in ". . . an enormous
refutation of the aristocratic, ordered, classical world of
the eighteenth century . . . [and the French Revolution7
reinforced that complex of changes in sensibility known as

the Romantic movement." (Harrison, 68)

During Bronté's lifetime, England completed the
transition from a rural to an urban society (although more
workers continued to farm than to work in factories) and from
an agriculturally-focused to an industrially-focused economy.
The aftermath of the American and French Revolutions, the
Napoleonic Wars, and the agrarian and industrial changes
affected England in all spheres while Charlotte lived and
wrote. She knew about the great era of political reform, the
railroad and steamship era, the ferment of social protest
and revolt, and the upheaval in the Church of England. If,
during Austen's life, "Agriculture was made more efficient
and its output was raised. But the social price of this was
a weakening of traditional community values in the villages,
a hardening of class divisions, and the degradation arising
from rural poverty." (Harrison, 48) Then, during Bronté's
time, "Life in the new industrial towns, the discipline of
the factories and the strenuous, incessant activity of the

mines and mills in which men [and women7 were harnessed

210

to machines, all meant great problems of human adjustment."
(Thomson, 43) This adjustment included the general govern-
mental economic policy of promoting national wealth through
unchecked private enterprise, a policy largely separated from
governmental political and social policies. Despite the
costs in human suffering of the transition to an industrial
society, England reflected a "buoyant, optimistic, and some-
what arrogant mood of 1851" in the Crystal Palace Exhibition
which Charlotte visited. This mood persisted for the next
twenty years (Thomson, 103).

Within this matrix of change, changes in women's
status occurred,also. The movement for legislation affecting
women's legal standing, employment, and life opportunities
has been briefly reviewed in Chapter I, along with the
restrictions placed on women novelists. Charlotte Bronté
was aware of much of this type of legislation and commented
not only on the "woman question" but on her inability or lack
of intention to adhere to these restrictions.

Subsequent generations cannot hold creative artists
responsible for not including in their works direct reflec-
tions or concrete illustrations of all aspects or happenings
of a period. Both Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronté have been
criticized for a lack of historical content. However, both
writers can be asked if they treated the concern of how women
should take part in the experiences of life, which included
all of the changes summarized. Then, did this concern affect

their creation of male characters?

211
Austen, from the examples of the novels studied, did
not make women's participation or desire for participation in
a wider area of life than the domestic sphere a major consid—
eration in her early work. Women's participation was con-
fined largely to securing or keeping a firm place in the
propertied hierarchical social system. Her last novel,

Persuasion, however, moved away from this focus and indicated

 

a desire on Anne's part to experience more of what men
experienced in a wider range of activities, while still being
aware of the separateness of men's and women's worlds. This
shift in focus resulted in the creation of different male
characters. Darcy's and Knightley's concerns centered on
property and on their part in the social structure. went—
worth, a navy man in a risky profession, reflected Austen's
growing awareness of an emerging middle class not based on
land, while her father, Sir Walter, and her cousin, Mr.
Elliot, reflected the weakening of landed society. Anne's
hero was not the landed proprietor, but the self-made man

of adventure in whose life Anne could participate vicariously
if not actually as a wife on shipboard.

In Bronté's life, this concern over expanding women's
participation in life's experiences, was much more developed,
and the topic entered into her novels to a greater degree.
All of the major female characters made a point to comment on
both their confined lives and the separate existences of men
and women. The male characters, in turn, reflected these two

situations. Rochester, a man of strong, expressed emotion,

212

lived a stormy, tempestuous life which included wandering
around the world, harboring a mad wife, and supporting
mistresses. Robert Moore, a foreigner and alienated from the
Yorkshire populace, nonetheless functioned in the mysterious,
attractive, sometimes dangerous world of business. And Paul
Emanuel was a highly respected professor who moved in and out
of the pensionnat at will, while Graham Bretton doctored to
the city's poor. Even St. John Rivers' desire to minister
to the heathen had a certain attractiveness to it for Jane.
Despite the women's characters' growing desires to be
more broadly included in life's experiences, the men in both
Austen's and Bronté's novels still remained dominant in rela-
tionships and in the world, and the women accepted this
dominance, even if they worked out marriages based on love
and mutual regard. The changing economic structure, ferment,
and protest in the political, social, and economic spheres
in Bronté's time did lead to changes in women's activities
and some legal changes in their status. But women were still
highly restricted in their movements, still considered weak
and vulnerable physically, and still at considerable dis-
advantages economically. These disadvantages also contrib-
uted in two ways to the male images which both Austen and
Bronte produced. In a world of "weak" women, weak men would
be criticized, if not despised. The images of mobile,
strong, economically viable, and Virile men were necessary to
complement or compensate for weak, vulnerable women. And,

as indicated in prior discussion, it was more than likely

213

that Bronte, and Austen to some extent, desired just as much
to do what the men did or to be like the men they created
than it was that they were working out sexual fantasies of
men.

Both Austen's and Bronté's fictional men affected the
whole nineteenth century. Bronte reacted negatively to
Austen's "ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined
houses!" But Bronté utilized Austen's convention of the two
suitors to provide her heroines with choices of two types of
men. Austen's more "classical" men, or restrained, polite,
near—perfect, and gallant, affected portrayals of men
throughout the century, even when authors rejected the model.
Bronté's less restrained, less conventionally polite, flawed,
and much rougher "romantic" men also reappeared in variations
again and again in nineteenth-century fiction and produced
descendents through Rhett Butler and the contemporary neo-
gothic romance.

One of the most significant "lessons" to be learned
from this essay on Austen and Bronté and the nineteenth-
century literary scene is that they did not presume to "know"
men and that they both commented in letters that they created
incomplete male characters with few inner thoughts who were
usually only seen in the women's domestic sphere. If this
is accepted as fact from the pens of two of the great observ-
ers of society and human nature, then it seems that they
accepted an essential separateness of men and women. For

even though men presumed to know women, as indicated in the

214
earlier discussions of the nineteenth-century literary world,

men did not know women, either. Not only biological dif-

ferences but vast differences in experience separated men's

and women ' s existences .

In today's society, many of the same concerns of

women as they relate to images of men still exist. Women

still seek identity through men, as well as status and secu-
rity, in modern literature and society; many women still
believe that men "make" the world and conquer civilization;
vast numbers of women still suffer under severe disadvan-

tages due to lack of employment opportunities and educational

advantages. Certain institutional changes have come about,

ways of thinking have been slowly altered, and even some

biological disadvantages have been overcome. However, the

only way to overcome separateness will be when women's activ—
ities are no longer limited or considered inferior, when they
are not apart, when women enter men's spheres as readily as
Inen stride in and out of the domestic sphere, when men par-
1:icipate in women's spheres instead of being mostly observers,

and when biological differences are recognized and accepted,

but not seen as forever limiting. Then, perhaps, men and

women will not be alienated from one another, nor will men

feel alienated from the society they have been given credit

and blame for creating and guiding. Then, perhaps, biology

and past traditions will not remain destiny and become the

blueprint for future history.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

AusUan Jane. Emma. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.,
1972 (originally published, 1815).

 

 

Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1965 (originally published, 1814).

Austen, Jane. Persuasion. New York: New American Library
(Signet Classic), 1964 (originally published, 1818).

 

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: W. W. Norton
and Company, Inc., 1966 (originally published, 1813).

Austen, Jane. Sense and Sensibility. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1931 (originally published, 1811).

Austen-Leigh, William, and Austen-Leigh, Richard A.
Jane Austen: Her Life and Letters: A Family Record.

2nd ed. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1913.

 

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York: New American Library
(Signet Classic), 1960 (originally published, 1847).

Bronte, Charlotte. Shirley. London: Collins Clear-Type Press,
1953 (originally published, 1849).

Bronté, Charlotte. Villette. London: Collins, 1961 (originally

published, 1853).

Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Heights. New York: New American
Library, 1959 (originally published, 1847).

Chapman, R. W., ed. Jane Austen's Letters. 2 vols. Oxford

University Press, 1932, 1955.

"Colleges for Girls." Englishwoman's Journal 2 (February
1859):361-74.

Dickens, Charles. Bleak House. New York: New American

ILibrary, 1964.

 

Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, Winston, 1972.

215

216

Dhflens,Charles. Hard Times. New York: New American Library,
1961.

 

Dickens, Charles. The Old Curiosity Shop. London: Oxford
Ikfiversity Press, 1951.

"The Disputed Question." Englishwoman's Journal. 1 (August
1858):361-67.

Efliot,Cborge. Middlemarch. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1968.

ELnfiu George. Mill on the Floss. New York: Heritage Press,
1963.

ELnny George. "Silly Novels by Women Novelists." Westminster
Review. n.s. X (October 1856):442-61.

Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in
En land. Stanford: University of California Press,

1975.

"An Enquiry into the State of Girls' Fashionable Schools."
Fraser's. XXXI (June 1845):703-12.

"Female Education in the Middle Classes." Englishwoman's
Journal. 1 (June 1858):217-27.

Fourier, Charles. Design for Utopia: Selected Writings of
Charles Fourier. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

 

Gaskell, Elizabeth. The Life of Charlotte Bronte. London:
J. M. Dent, 1960; lst publication, 1857.

Greenwell, Dora. "Our Single Women." North British Review.
XXXVI (February 1862):62—87.

Lewes, George Henry. "The Lady Novelists." Westminster

Loudon, J3 “L, ed. "How Should Girls Be Educated?" The Ladies
Companion at Home and Abroad. vol. I (23 March 1850) :

184.

"Maria Edgeworth." Englishwoman's Journal. 2 (September 1858):

10—35.

Martineau, Harriet. Harriet Martineau's Autobiography.
Ifliited by Maria W. Chapman, and Memorials of Harriet
Martineau, 2 vols. 7th ed. by Maria W. Chapman.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1877.

 

Martineau, Harriet. "Middle-Class Education in England-Boys.‘
Cernhill Magazine. X (October 1864):409—26.

T

 

217

Martnmmu, Harriet. "Middle-Class Education in England-
Girls." Cornhill Magazine. X (November 1864):549-68.

Mamm,Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto.
New York: Pocket Books, 1964.

Mill,£kmn Stuart. The Subjection of Women. Arlington Heights,
Illinois: AHM Publishing Corporation, 1980.

RuSKhn John. Sesame and Lilies. Chicago: Homewood Publishing
Company, n.d.

Shorter, Clement K. Charlotte Bronte and Her Circle.
New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1896.

Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair. New York: New
American Library, 1962.

"What Men Think of Women." The Ladies Companion at Home and
Abroad. 1 (9 February 1850):90.

"What Men Think of Women." The Ladies Companion at Home and
Abroad. 1 (16 February l850):104.

"What Women Think of Men." The Ladies Companion at Home and
Abroad. 1 (13 April l850):23l.

"What Women Think of Men." The Ladies Companion at Home and
Abroad. l (20 April l850):264.

"Woman and Her Social Position." The Westminster Review.
XXXV (January 1841):24—52.

Secondary Sources

Arnstein, Walter L. Britain Yesterday and Today: 1830 to the
Present. 4th ed. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath

and Company, 1983.

Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. Translated by Annette
Lavers, Colin Smith. London: Cape, 1967.

Basch, Francoise. Relative Creatures: Victorian Women in
Society and the Novel. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Berger, Monroe. Real and Imagined Worlds: The Novel and
Social Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1977.

 

Bissell, C. T. "Social Analysis in the Novels of George
Elixyt." Journal of English Literary History. XVIII
(September 195i) :221-39.

 

218

Brown, Ivor. Jane Austen and Her World. New York: Henry Z.
Walck, Inc., 1966.

Brown, Lloyd. "Jane Austen and the Feminist Tradition."
Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 28 (1973):321-29.

Cairns, John C., ed. The Nineteenth Century, 1815—1914.
New York: The Free Press, 1965.

(Zainery Jenni. Women and Marriage in Victorian Fiction.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Crmxik, W. A. The Bronte Novels. London: Methuen and Company,
Ltd., 1968.

Chnaik, W. A. Jane Austen in Her Time. London: Thomas Nelson
and Sons, Ltd., 1969.

(Iruse, Amy. The Victorians and Their Reading. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935.

Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism,

Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1975.

Delafield, E. M. Ladies and Gentlemen in Victorian Fiction.
London: n.p., 1937.

Dodsworth, Martin. "Women without Men at Cranford." Essays
in Criticism. XIII (April l963):132-45.

Duckworth, Alistair. The Improvement of the Estate: A Study

of Jane Austen's Novels. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1971.

Eagleton, Terry. Myths of Power: A Marxist Study of the
Brontés. London: MacMillan, 1975.

Ihdmnk, Inga-Stina. Their Proper Sphere: A Study of the
Bronte Sisters as Early-Victorian Female Novelists.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Faber, Richard. Proper Stations: Class in Victorian Fiction.
London: Faber and Faber, 1971.

memult, Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge. Translated by
Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972.

kamman, Lillian. Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic

Friendship and Love from the Renaissance to the Present.

New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1981.

m ..

i...

 

 

219

Gérin, Winifred. Charlotte Bronte: The Evolution of Genius.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

 

Gillie, Christopher. A Preface to Jane Austen. London:
Longman Group, Ltd., 1974.

 

Girouard, Mark. The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the
English Gentleman. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1981.

 

 

Hardwick, Elizabeth. Seduction and Betrayal: Women and
Literature. New York: Random House, 1974. ~

 

 

Harrison, John F. C. The Birth and Growth of Industrial
England, 1714-1867. New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich,
1973.

 

 

Hobsbawm, E. J. Industry and Empire: An Economic History of
Britain Since 1750. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
c1968.

 

 

Hopkins, Annette B. The Father of the Brontés. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1958.

 

Hopkins, Annette B. "Mary Barton: A Victorian Bestseller"
The Trollopian. III (June 1948):1-18.

 

Houghton, Walter E. The Victorian Frame of Mind. New Haven,
1957.

 

Janeway, Elizabeth. Man's World, Woman's Place. New York:
Dell Publishing Company, 1971.

 

Jelinek, Estelle C., ed. Women's Autobiography: Essays in
Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980.

 

Keefe, Robert. Charlotte Bronté's World of Death. Austin and
London: University of Texas Press, 1979.

 

Kennard, Jean E. Victims of Convention. Hamden, Connecticut:
Archon Books, 1978.

 

Kettle, Arnold, An Introduction to the English Novel. Vol. 1:
Defoe to George Eliot. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

 

Kierkegaard, Soren. The Present Age. New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1962.

 

Lane, Margaret. The Bronté Story: A Reconsideration of
Mrs. Gaskell's Life of Charlotte BrontE. Glasgow:
Fontana, 1953, 1979.

220

ILascelles, Mary. Jane Austen and Her Art. London: Oxford
University Press, 1939.

ILaslett, Peter. The World We Have Lost: England Before the

Industrial Age. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1971.

Lukacs, George. The Historical Novel. Translated by Hannah
and Stanley Mitchell. Boston: Beacon Press, 1963.

Lukacs, George. Studies in Eurgpean Realism. Translated by
Edith Bone. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1964.

McMaster, Juliet, ed. Jane Austen's Achievement. London:
The MacMillan Press, Ltd., 1976.

McMaster, Juliet. Jane Austen on Love. University of
Victoria, B.C.: English Literary Studies (#13), 1978.

Masefield, Muriel. Women Novelists from Fanny Burney to

‘George Eliot. Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries
Press, Inc., 1934, 1967.

Mitchell, B. R. Abstract of British Historical Statistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Moers, Ellen. Literary Women. Garden City: Doubleday and
Company, Inc., 1976.

Moglen, Helene. Charlotte Bronté: The Self Conceived.
New York: Norton, 1976.

Monaghan, David, ed. Jane Austen in a Social Context.
Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981.

Monaghan, David. Jane Austen: Structure and Social Vision.
London: The MacMillan Press, Ltd., 1980.

Morton, A. L. The Life and Ideas of Robert Owen. New York:
International Publishers, 1969.

Mudrick, Marvin. Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1952.

Nardin, Jane. Those Elegant Decorums: The Concept of

Propriety in Jane Austen's Novels. Albany: SUNY Press,
1973.

Offor, Richard. The Brontés: Their Relation to the History
and Politics of Their Time. reprint, Pubiications
of the Bronte Society. pt. 53, 1943.

 

 

221

Paris, Bernard J. Character and Conflict in Jane Austen's
Novels: A Psychological Approach. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1978.

 

 

Paris, Bernard J. A Psychological Approach to Fiction.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974.

 

Perkin, Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780—
1880. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

 

Peters, Margot. Unquiet Soul: A Biography of Charlotte
Bronté. New York: Pocket Books, 1976.

 

Pinion, F. B. A Bronté Companion: Literary Assessment,
Background, and Reference. New York: Barnes and Noble,
1975.

 

Praz, Mario. The Hero in Eclipse in Victorian Fiction.
Translated by Angus Davidson. London: Oxford University
Press, 1969.

Ratchford, Fannie. The Brontés' Web of Childhood. New York:
Russell and Russell, Inc., 1964.

Searle, G. R. The Quest for National Efficiency. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1971.

 

Showalter, Elaine. A Literature of Their Own: British
Women Novelists from Bronté to Lessing. Princeton:
Prince University Press, 1977.

Spacks, Patricia Mayer. The Female Imagination. New York:
n.p., 1975.

Stansky, Peter. England Since 1867: Continuity and Change.
New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, Inc., 1973.

Stearns, Peter N. European Society in Upheaval: Social
History Since 1750. 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan

Publishing Company, Inc., 1975.

 

Stearns, Peter N., ed. The Other Side of Western Civilization:
Readings in EverydayiLife. Vol. II. New York: Harcourt
Brace Janovich, Inc., 1973.

 

Stubbs, Patricia. Women and Fiction: Feminism and the Novel,
1880—1920. Sussex: The Harvester Press, Ltd., 1979.

 

Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class.
New York: Vintage Books, 1966.

Thomson, David. England in the Nineteenth Century, 1815-1914.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1962.

222

Tillotson, Kathleen. Novels of the Eighteen—Forties.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.

 

Welsh, Alexander. The City of Dickens. London: Oxford
University Press, 1971.

 

Wiener, Martin J. English Culture and the Decline of the
Industrial Spirit, l850—l980. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981.

 

 

Wilkinson, Rupert. Gentlemanly Power: British Leadership and
the Public School Tradition. London: Oxford University
Press, 1964.

 

 

Willcox, William B., and Arnstein, Walter L. The Age of
Aristocracy: 1688 to 1830. 4th ed. Lexington,
Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1983.

 

 

Williams, Raymond. The Countrygand the City. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1973.

 

Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society, 1780-1950. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1960.

 

Wohl, Anthony, ed. The Victorian Family: Structure and
Stresses. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978.

 

Young, G. M. Victorian England: Portrait of an Age. London,
1960.

 

 

 

 

 

"1111!!!!Milli!!!“