How Jane Eyre Scandalised Victorian High Society | Literary Classics | Absolute History

Jane Eyre was released in 1847 and is considered a masterpiece of literature, offering a critique and celebration of Victorian society. Brontë stunned the aristocratic Victorian elite by boldly criticizing prevailing Victorian ideals in her novel, crafting a love story that defied conventional expectations. Charlotte Bronte, the author, was born in 1816 and grew up in a household marked by sickness and death, losing her mother at a young age. Charlotte's early education included a harsh experience at the Cowbridge Clergy Daughters School, which influenced her depiction of Lowood in Jane Eyre.

Join the Absolute History club to get access to exclusive member benefits! 💚

#AbsoluteHistory

[katherinekelly]

One note of criticism; Jane and her cousins were not left equal portions of her dead uncle's money. It was all left to Jane. However, she insisted that the money be fairly divided amongst them.

[taylorlibby]

To be fair it didn't take much effort to scandalize Victorian high society.

[chuzzthefuzz]

Don‘t get me wrong, I really enjoyed this, but I did expect a more direct discussion of how society was scandalised. This was simply a breakdown of rhe novel. I can work out for myself how society would have felt about it, but the title was misleading.

[aydenkelly]

I love that Jane is tempted by passion (Rochester) and Christian duty (Rivers) but realises that both options are corrupted and potentially fatal to her physical and/or mental health in the form they're offered her. Injured, widowed Rochester offers her outlets for both passion and duty, but in a socially acceptable form.

[cornelisjacobus]

Sorry, but there are several errors: RosaMOND and not RosaLYNN Oliver. The prosperous uncle in Madeira does not bequeath his money in equal parts to Jane and her cousins. Jane is the sole heiress, who decides to share her inheritance. Furthermore, Rochester did not wonder if Jane had bewitched his horseS, but merely his horse. This documentary is put together by people who are not sufficiently acquainted by the book or at least give that impression to readers of Charlotte Brontë's work.

[XeniaMS-yvfy]

Jane was very prudent in refusing to accept to be Rochester ‘s mistress, love and passion notwithstanding. He ‘d had several mistresses that he got tired of and left. Outside the institution of marriage Jane would not have had any rights at all and as she had no family, no protection either. For contemporary readers, it was very clear what the fate of a seduced woman could be, it was never pretty. Jane was fighting a battle between her love and strong physical desire and protecting herself, her identity, her moral beliefs and her own worth, which at the time meant, among g other things, also her virginity.
The “scandal”of the novel was the level of sexual tension and passion in many scenes.To us they might be anodyne, but for Victorian readers certain words and certain acts were powerful symbols.Just an example, giving a man a lock of your hair meant giving him a LOT more than that, it was an amazing intimate gesture. That Rochester spoke openly of his colourful and sinful past, of his relationship with Adele’s mother, a dancer (and obviously a “working girl” ) and of Adele’ s illegitimacy to Jane, a young, unmarried woman, was perceived as profoundly shocking in a time in which upper class women were never allowed to be unchaperoned, topics of discussions were absolutely NEVER the sexual escapades of their male interlocutor. Even in her poverty, thanks to her late father’s job in the Church, Jane belongs to Rochester’s social class , albeit in a very low ranking position. Governesses, who had to give the children of the rich an appropriate education, were invariably ladies whose families had lost wealth and status owing to misfortune or mismanagement. They were often looked down upon by their employers and not accepted as one of them by the lower class servants . It was generally a solitary, miserable life.

[Widdershins.]

Wait...so How DID Jane Eyre Scandalise Victorian High Society? Title is more than a bit click-baity. Also the acting was cringe - then I realized this video is 25-ish years old. Still, it's my favorite book, and always happy to spend time hearing someone talk about it.

[ManWhoLovesTheMary]

They claim in this documentary that the three most religious figures in this novel (which has quickly become one of my favorites) get bad endings. But it's not BECAUSE they were God-believing, God-following people. Jane speaks many times about God's grace and God's love and contrasts the living by law verses living by grace aspect of the Christian faith. In Lowood, the hypocrocy is replaced with fairness and illustrates God's love. When she's homeless and looking up at the stars, she speaks of God's goodness and very practically speaks of how lonely it would be away at an Italian villa being a sort of part-time lover and how sad it would get after a while. When she considers the proposal at the end with Sinjin, it's not the dedication to God part that she doesn't agree to, it's the lack of love between a husband and wife that she refuses to marry him.

[Yetica]

One of my favorite books since teen years ❤️

[dalhousiekid]

Very early Victorian period - 1837-1901. Closer to the Regency era.

[catrinlewis]

I didn't realize Charlotte actually got married before her death. Was her husband not well off enough to hire a nurse to make sure she got enough to drink? Or did they not know the danger of dehydration?

[tacocat-c]

Wide Sargasso Sea is a fan fiction prequel to Jane Eyre. I didn't read the book but saw the movie. It's about Bertha and Rochester and why they married and her spiral into madness. It's not a Bronte novel but still interesting to see someone's interpretation of what happened with Bertha

[avariceseven]

Listened to the audiobook and liked it. The most memorable for me is when she left moneyless and when she asked if she can have the food that was to be given for the pig.

I almost dropped it when her cousin was being very pushy in wanting to marry her. It was rather uncomfortable to listen. There she was sharing her inheritance to her cousins and then he wants to marry her.

[kamaubrendamuthoni]

Jane’s uncle left his fortune to Jane alone, not equal parts to his nieces and nephews. It is jane who decides to split it into two parts

[JoshuaThompson-zn]

Since this is essentially a plot review, please allow me to indulge a few of my favorite elements of the novel: like practically anyone who enjoys this, I adore Jane throughout; likeise, I despise Rochester (as loathable as Jane is adoreable); and Helen is one of the better small roles ever created (her death scene is tearjerkingly tragic while also somehow very sweet).

[wyominghome]

Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles starred in a wonderful version of this story. Still my favorite.

[meeeka]

The first time I read Jane Eyre, I was 12 and had no real understanding of its baser desires. At the time I thought she was "Bonkers!" for marrying this derelict, blind and broken old man. Jane deserved much more, happiness and extreme celebrations with a Guy Fawkes bonfire, tossed in for emphasis!
Then reading it, as one did annually, almost reflexively, those first, foundational feelings didn't change much. But, closing in on more than 2/3 a century of reading Jane, I think it's time to revisit them all and reinterrogate what Charlotte hoped to convey.

[LaCarusiella]

My favourite love story! Although it reflects how much ignorance there was at the time about mental illness. The poor woman is described as a monster

[heloisamariani]

Jane Eyre herself says to Rochester right before he proposes that they're equals, and he completely agrees. When Jane refuses his gifts and has doubts about marrying him, they are 100% related to her fear of losing her identitiy and her independence. She knows that when she gets married, she's going to lose her name and if she ever had an inheritance, it wouldn't belong to her, she knew that she would become an object to her husband of she accepts his gifts and depends on him to maintain her. She knew she wouldn't be able to make or have her own money. These are very much things that worry her in the month of engagement, and also when she decides to leave Rochester. So how can you say that she's not a feminist because she doesn't have these notions when she clearly does? You can argue that she's not a feminist on other grounds, I'm sure, but not for these reasons.

[bluedancelilly]

So how did the novel scandalize society?