Victorians! discussion
This topic is about
The Life of Charlotte Brontë
Biographies and Non-fiction
>
Life of C Brontë - Section 2
date
newest »
newest »
It's astonishing how normal it was to generally neglect women's writing. It was entirely natural for Robert Southey to write the following in a letter to Charlotte (I hope I didn't mix anything up, and it was addressed to her) in 1837: "Literature cannot be the business of a woman's life, and it ought not be." (in ch. 8)So I understand writing was considered unfeminine altogether? It's a good thing the Brontë sisters still did!
Good point, Jackie. I missed that, making the connection between Southey's letter and the adoption of a masculine identity later. I've been caught up in the depression she feels being a governess. When I reread her reply to Southey just now, I was hit by her vow to "...nevermore feel ambitious to see my name in print." If only Southey would have lived to see that daydreamy girl C. Brone become Currer Bell.
Teaching, Belgium, poems by the "Bell brothers"
Once again, here are a few broad introductory questions to get things going. Feel free to comment on anything at all that struck you from this section.
Many of you have recently read Villette with the group. Both this novel and The Professor borrow heavily from Charlotte’s time in Belgium. Gaskell has been criticized for omitting details about Charlotte’s infatuation with Constantin Héger whilst teaching at his school. How important do you think it is that a biography be a “warts and all” account of a person’s life? Do you think Gaskell was wrong to leave out what clearly had a tremendous impact on Charlotte’s life?
The last chapter of this section describes how Charlotte, Emily and Anne came to have their poetry published. “…we veiled our own names under those of Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by a sort of inconspicuous scruple at assuming Christian names, positively masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women, because – without at the time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called “feminine”, - we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice”.
I found the remark about the sisters’ not then suspecting their writing and thinking was unfeminine very interesting; I wondered whether it was because of or in spite of their relatively sheltered and isolated upbringing that this was so. What do you think?