The Bronte Myth

( 1 )

Overview

In a brilliant combination of biography, literary criticism, and history, The Bronté Myth shows how Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Bronté became cultural icons whose ever-changing reputations reflected the obsessions of various eras.

When literary London learned that Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights had been written by young rural spinsters, the Brontés instantly became as famous as their shockingly passionate books. Soon after their deaths, their first biographer spun the sisters ...

See more details below
Paperback (Reprint)
$12.09
BN.com price
(Save 24%)$15.95 List Price
Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (21) from $1.99   
  • New (8) from $7.01   
  • Used (13) from $1.99   
Bronte Myth

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • NOOK HD/HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK Study
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$11.99
BN.com price

Overview

In a brilliant combination of biography, literary criticism, and history, The Bronté Myth shows how Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Bronté became cultural icons whose ever-changing reputations reflected the obsessions of various eras.

When literary London learned that Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights had been written by young rural spinsters, the Brontés instantly became as famous as their shockingly passionate books. Soon after their deaths, their first biographer spun the sisters into a picturesque myth of family tragedies and Yorkshire moors. Ever since, these enigmatic figures have tempted generations of readers–Victorian, Freudian, feminist–to reinterpret them, casting them as everything from domestic saints to sex-starved hysterics. In her bewitching “metabiography,” Lucasta Miller follows the twists and turns of the phenomenon of Bront-mania and rescues these three fiercely original geniuses from the distortions of legend.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
“A wonderfully entertaining and often spellbinding account of . . . the process of mythification.” —The New York Times Book Review

[SPINE]
Title: The Bront‘ Myth
Author: Lucasta Miller
Imprint: Anchor Books
[BACK AD]
Biography/Literary Criticism
“Absorbing. . . . Ms. Miller writes with such lucidity, wit and plain common sense that she is able to shed new light on the Bront‘s. . . . [An erudite and clearheaded book.” —The New York Times
In a brilliant combination of biography, literary criticism, and history, The Bront‘ Myth shows how Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Bront‘ became cultural icons whose ever-changing reputations reflected the obsessions of various eras.
When literary London learned that Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights had been written by young rural spinsters, the Bront‘s instantly became as famous as their shockingly passionate books. Soon after their deaths, their first biographer spun the sisters into a picturesque myth of family tragedies and Yorkshire moors. Ever since, these enigmatic figures have tempted generations of readers–Victorian, Freudian, feminist–to reinterpret them, casting them as everything from domestic saints to sex-starved hysterics. In her bewitching “metabiography,” Lucasta Miller follows the twists and turns of the phenomenon of Bront‘-mania and rescues these three fiercely original geniuses from the distortions of legend.

“A juicy new biography of the Bront‘ sisters. . . . Miller ticks off [the] dizzying shifts in the Bront‘ Zeitgeist with great erudition and wit. . . . Miller’s own scholarship is formidable, her voice informal and fresh.” —The Washington Post

“A brilliant, wide-ranging studyÉmeticulously researched, written with wit and relish, and packed with irresistible detail.” —The Times (London)

“Miller unravels the Bront‘ myth with tenacity, detail, and grace–from souvenir tea towels and Haworth Parsonage mugs to Hollywood visions of wind-swept moors. In the process, she restores life to Emily and Anne, and especially to Charlotte.” —The Christian Science Monitor

“Provocative The Bront‘ Myth is a first-rate work of scholarship and criticism, and a surprisingly entertaining read. Thanks to Miller’s clearheadedness, it seems unlikely that the Bront‘s will ever again be marginalized into the spooky spinsters of the myth.” —San Jose Mercury News

“[An] ingenious book.” —The New Yorker
“Brilliant and rivetingÉ.Miller’s unputdownable and erudite book has not only left us with a clearer picture and greater understanding of the Bront‘s and the nature of biography, but tells us a lot about ourselves.” —Daily Mail (London)

“Sharply intelligent, original and wittyÉLiterary history is seldom related with such a pleasant combination of brio and erudition.” —The Sunday Times (London)

“Excellent. . . . Lucasta Miller strips away all those inaccurate accretions which have turned Charlotte, Emily and Anne into uncanny, coughing geniuses. . . . Miller’s book is so good, clever and necessary that, far from making biographical writing redundant, it shows us just how wonderful it can occasionally be. The Bront‘ Myth is essential reading.” —Sunday Telegraph (London)

“A witty deconstruction of Bront‘maniaÉdone with a deft, light touch..” —Guardian (UK)

The New York Times
Although the book is heavily indebted to recent Brontë scholarship (most notably Lyndall Gordon's superb 1994 biography Charlotte Brontë: A Passionate Life), Ms. Miller writes with such lucidity, wit and plain common sense that she is able to shed new light on the Brontës and the Brontë industry, while at the same time raising important questions about changing fashions in biography writing and academic scholarship. — Michiko Kakutani
The Washington Post
If Miller has a slant of her own, it goes like this: The Brontës (particularly Charlotte) were ambitious, talented, hardworking artists, self-conscious craftswomen who were fully aware of the impact of their fictions on the reading public, including the fiction of their pseudonymous identities and the carefully tended myth of rustic Yorkshire. To the modern ear, this may sound self-evident -- why would anyone doubt that two of the greatest novelists of the 19th century were conscious artists? -- but Miller's impeccably researched book shows us the extent to which the sisters have been deployed as ideological weathervanes, or (to use an image more appropriate to their much-discussed gender) handmaids of intellectual history. — Dana Stevens
The New Yorker
Although a collaborative first book of poems sold only two copies, the Brontë sisters were in their own time subject to the kind of cult fascination that persists today, with thousands of pilgrims journeying every year to the Brontë home, in Yorkshire. Miller’s ingenious book traces this fascination, beginning with Mrs. Gaskell’s famous 1857 biography, which sought to excuse the “coarseness” of novels like “Jane Eyre” and “Wuthering Heights” by embellishing details of the authors’ gothically miserable childhood. Miller provides a corrective—a biography of a biography—showing how successive generations, including Stracheyan, Freudian, feminist, and poststructural critics, remolded the Brontës to fit their own agendas. Like Mrs. Gaskell’s, these treatments often focussed more on the authors’ lives than on their work, in spite of Charlotte’s plea: “I wished critics would judge me as an author, not as a woman.”
KLIATT
In her Preface, British editor and literary critic Lucasta Miller observes that the authors of the classics Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights have themselves become "mythic figures." Her stated purpose is "to trace the historical route by which the Brontds' lives came to take on this unusual prominence." Her book is less a biography of the Brontds than it is a "book about biography." Miller suggests that over the years too much emphasis has been placed on the lives of the sisters and too little attention has been focused on their abilities to transform experience into art. While she does not claim that she can provide the absolute truth about the lives of the Brontds, she does offer an historical perspective of the myths surrounding the "three weird sisters," as Ted Hughes called them. Since Anne Brontd as an individual does not have the "mythic stature" of her sisters, the book concentrates mostly on Charlotte and Emily. Miller's examination is entertaining, thoroughly researched, and extraordinarily informative and insightful. The reader is reminded that the classic Brontd novels were originally published under male pseudonyms. Earlier, Charlotte had sent a few of her poems to Poet Laureate Robert Southey. In reply, Charlotte was told, "Literature cannot be the business of a woman's life." Jane Eyre was published and caused an "immediate sensation." When it became known that Jane Eyre and Emily's Wuthering Heights were, in fact, written by women, the accusations of "coarseness" generated by the emotional intensity of the books led to the beginning of the Brontd myth. Following the death of the last Brontd sister, Elizabeth Gaskell's Life of CharlotteBrontd, with its inaccuracies and half-truths, demonstrated the power of biography to shape public perception of the Brontds. Over the years, Brontd biographers have espoused a number of bizarre theories that Miller successfully debunks while offering her own more balanced and less fictionalized views. Miller suggests that we are "living in a golden age of Brontd scholarship" as errors, misunderstandings, and myths give way to historical accuracy and reason. Miller's work is an excellent example of that scholarship. KLIATT Codes: A—Recommended for advanced students and adults. 2001, Random House, Anchor, 351p. illus. notes. bibliog. index., Ages 17 to adult.
—Anthony Pucci
Library Journal
Ever since Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of Charlotte Bronte, the Bronte sisters have assumed a mythic stature that often exceeds that of their novels, sometimes approaching cult status. An ex-Hell's Angels' biker claimed at the 1994 meeting of the Bronte Society to channel Charlotte's spirit! Their lives have been the subject of many biographies but also the inspiration for numerous plays, poems, novels, movies, and television. Miller, deputy literary editor of the Independent, here offers what she terms a "metabiography" to trace the developing biographical image that informs the various myths, and to recover the writer's life of Charlotte, Emily, and to a lesser degree Anne. Miller is conversant with the various biographical readings of the Brontes-romantic, sentimental, psychoanalytical, feminist, Marxist, postfeminist, and even postcolonial-which she examines with clarity, insight, wit, and verve. Miller's book represents cultural studies at its best and makes for an important contribution to the specialist but also a joy to the enthusiast. Highly recommended.-T.L. Cooksey, Armstrong Atlantic State Univ., Savannah, GA Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781400078356
  • Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
  • Publication date: 1/4/2005
  • Edition description: Reprint
  • Pages: 368
  • Sales rank: 599,766
  • Product dimensions: 5.16 (w) x 7.99 (h) x 0.79 (d)

Meet the Author

Lucasta Miller was educated at Oxford. She was the deputy literary editor of The Independent. Her articles and critcism have appeared in The Times, The Times Literary Supplement, The Independent, and The Sunday Telegraph.
Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER ONE

To Be for Ever Known

If the twenty-year-old Charlotte Brontë had been told that she would one day be a household name, that her picture would hang in a future National Portrait Gallery, and that pilgrims would travel to Haworth on her account from as far away as Japan, she would have been delighted but not altogether surprised. The image of the Brontës presented in Charlotte’s own “Biographical Notice” of her sisters casts them as “unobtrusive women” shunning fame. Yet Charlotte’s early ambition was not merely to write but “to be for ever known.”

By the time she died, at the age of nearly thirty-nine, in 1855, she had indeed become a celebrity. Two years later, with the publication of Elizabeth Gaskell’s The Life of Charlotte Brontë, she became a legend. Yet her journey from private individual to public persona was less straightforward than her naive twenty-year-old self might have hoped. Instead of a triumphant progress out of obscurity into the “light & glory” of literary renown, she would have to travel a tortuous route, characterized as much by evasion and self-effacement as by self-exposure.

She soon realized that, as a woman writing in an age in which “authoresses” were “liable to be looked upon with prejudice,” it was expedient to disguise herself under a male-sounding pseudonym if she was to make her work public. In her novels, that pseudonym would give her the freedom to use her own emotional life as the basis of her art, allowing her to revolutionize the imaginative presentation of women’s inner lives. She was so uninhibited in her portrayal of the female psyche that her heroines shocked many of her contemporaries and were accused of unwomanly assertion, morbid passion, and anti-Christian individualism.

So when her pseudonym began to slip and her real identity became known in literary circles, Charlotte had to seek out a new sort of protective “veil” to distract attention from the unacceptable elements of her fiction and deflect attacks on her personal morality. She found this shield in her social persona as the modest spinster daughter of a country parson, disingenuously insisting to those she met on the literary circuit that she bore no more than a fleeting external resemblance to the rebellious Jane Eyre. Unlike the French novelist George Sand (1804–76), who wore men’s clothes and took a stream of high-profile lovers, Charlotte never sought a bohemian lifestyle. Sand’s novels, with their frank portrayal of female desire, may have influenced her writing. But Charlotte the clergyman’s daughter was not prepared to sacrifice her respectability. She was well aware that she lived in a society where “publicity . . . for a woman . . . is degrading if it is not glorious” and where the line between celebrity and notoriety was perilously thin.

If Charlotte Brontë was her own mythologizer, she invented two distinct and conflicting myths, the second designed to deflect attention from the first. One was the positive myth of female self-creation embodied by her autobiographical heroines, Jane Eyre and Lucy Snowe, who forge their own sense of selfhood in conflict with their social environment. The other, which eventually inspired the saintly heroine of Elizabeth Gaskell’s Life of Charlotte Brontë, was a quiet and trembling creature, reared in total seclusion, a martyr to duty, and a model of Victorian femininity, whose sins against convention, if she had unwittingly committed any, could be explained away by her isolated upbringing and the sufferings she had endured. Both had their elements of truth in aspects of Charlotte Brontë’s private character, but both were imaginative constructs, consciously developed.

Charlotte’s perception of the writer’s self as material for mythology derived from her Romantic inheritance, as did the lifelong belief in her own genius which enabled her to achieve what she did in literature against the odds. Her youthful faith in writing as a route to immortal fame had been established early on in childhood. Because of the way her public image was molded after her death, her family has, over the past century and a half, been primarily remembered for its tragedies. But what made her able to transform herself into one of the major novelists of the nineteenth century was the fact that she grew up steeped in literature, defining herself as a writer from a very young age. Charlotte was five when her mother died and eight when she was sent with her sisters to the Clergy Daughters’ School at Cowan Bridge, where the eldest two, Maria and Elizabeth, contracted the tuberculosis that killed them. Yet within a year or so of these damaging experiences, Charlotte had recovered sufficiently to form an intense bond with her three surviving siblings, Branwell, Emily, and Anne, in boisterous imaginative games fueled by the literary tastes their father encouraged. Like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who talked metaphysics with his infant son Hartley, the Reverend Patrick Brontë took a Romantic interest in his children’s development and encouraged their precocity.

Charlotte and Branwell later recorded how their “plays” began in 1826 with the present of a box of toy soldiers. In real life, death had intruded as an arbitrary force. In play, they could take control when, as four gigantic Genii, they held the power of life and death over the diminutive wooden men. Soon, they began to make tiny magazines for the soldiers, writing out their own compositions in microscopic script. This scribblemania continued long after they had outgrown the toys which had originally inspired it and eventually became a purely literary adventure. By the time they were into their teens, their understanding of the term “Genius” was more metaphorical than it had been, but no less potent. Eventually, the siblings split off into two separate camps, Charlotte and Branwell chronicling the history of the imaginary kingdom of Angria while Emily and Anne invented their own fantasy world, Gondal.

At an early age, the young Brontës formed a habit of treating writers as heroes. In one game, played when they were aged between seven and eleven, each had to pick an island and its chief men. Their chosen leaders included literary figures such as Sir Walter Scott, J. G. Lockhart, Leigh Hunt, and “Christopher North” (John Wilson) of Blackwood’s magazine, all of whom were clearly believed to be as powerful as a man of action like the Duke of Wellington, who was also selected. Though Emily’s and Anne’s early prose has not survived, Angria and its predecessor Glass Town are vividly documented in Charlotte’s and Branwell’s voluminous juvenilia, which reveal their fantasy world as a place where writers were important figures.

Charlotte’s early-established belief in the writer as an exceptional individual derived from her sophisticated childhood and teenage reading and continued into adulthood. During the 1820s and 1830s, Blackwood’s Magazine, and later Fraser’s, formed the core of her cultural education. Unlike today’s magazines, these periodicals were not mere ephemera but would have been kept and reread like books. They offered an often highbrow mix of poetry, fiction, satire, criticism, philosophy, history, and political commentary, often sustained to booklike length. Blackwood’s, in particular, turned its contributors into cult figures, such as James Hogg, “the Ettrick Shepherd.” A serialized “Gallery of Literary Characters” in Fraser’s during 1832 reinforced the celebrity status of the writer. Steeped in the fallout from the Romantic movement, these magazines fostered the belief that poets were not mere linguistic craftsmen, but privileged souls whose personalities were as important as their actual literary output. One Blackwood’s article on Byron in 1828 casually refers to “Great Poets” as “the Chosen Few.” Another, two years later, also on Byron, describes famous poets as “fixed stars” forming their own “celestial clubs.”

In their imaginary city of Glass Town, Charlotte and Branwell could aspire to join this heavenly clique by writing poetry and prose under the pseudonyms of their favorite characters. These alter egos were all, without exception, men. As Christine Alexander points out, writing was regarded in the Brontë household as “very much a male domain.” At this stage, Charlotte had no conscious anxiety about unquestioningly identifying herself with the power and privilege of her narrators, who were male simply because she had few female models to emulate (there was no Jane Austen, for example, on the Parsonage shelves). The conflict between her gender and her desire to write would only become explicit later, particularly when she made contact with the real-life world of professional letters. Even so, it still provoked latent tensions in her juvenilia which would not be finally exploded until Jane Eyre, in which she used a woman’s voice. Charlotte’s best mature fiction is remarkable for the subjective intensity of its female first-person narrators, but in her juvenilia she tended to adopt the pose of a cynical and detached male narrator. Something held her back from total engagement, except as a voyeur.

When thirteen-year-old Branwell threw himself enthusiastically into the character of Young Soult, an inspired poet, fourteen-year-old Charlotte could only stand back and mock in a satirical drama, The Poetaster. Soult is turned into Henry Rhymer, a drunken coward who writes trite little verses about his own Orphic powers, stamps his foot, and treats his social superiors with absurd flattery one minute, insults the next. When Lord Charles Wellesley, Charlotte’s cynical alter ego, reads Rhymer’s effusions, he can hardly contain his giggles. Rhymer ends up being kicked out of the room by another of Charlotte’s alter egos, the Angrian prose author Captain Tree. Rhymer responds by murdering the unfortunate Tree, but is reprieved on the gallows when Tree is magically brought back to life.

There is no doubt that Branwell at this age could be infuriatingly bumptious and probably deserved everything he got. Yet the very mercilessness of Charlotte’s attack suggests how threatened and excluded she felt by her brother’s confident identification with the poet who knows that after his death he will become (quoting the Blackwood’s article on Byron of a few months before) “a fixed star ascending to the heaven of literature and there establishing its glory, in the midst of poets which are its fellows, to all eternity.” This is Henry Rhymer speaking in Charlotte’s satire, but his words sound remarkably similar to her own Romantic ideals. Indeed, his Keatsian belief that true poetry comes as naturally as the leaves to the tree—“The thoughts should come spontaneously as I write or they’re not the inspiration of genius”—is almost identical with the credo earnestly expressed by Charlotte thirteen years later. In an essay written while she was studying in Brussels in 1843, she argued that for the true poet “inspiration takes the place of reflection” and that “the man of genius produces, without work.” If the teenage Charlotte found her brother’s posturing unbearable, it was because she would herself have liked to identify with the high Romantic conception of the man of genius, but felt prohibited from giving herself fully to the fantasy because she was a girl.

When Charlotte does write in a nonsatirical poetic voice, we find her bewailing the fate of the “neglected genius” who dies unrecognized:

None can tell the bitter anguish

Of those lofty souls that languish,

With grim penury still dwelling:

Quenched by frowns their sacred fire,

All their powers within them swelling,

Tortured by neglect to ire.

It may be written in the voice of the Angrian Marquis of Douro, but this poem reflects Charlotte’s angry sense of her own unacknowledged worth. In it, she goes on to address Genius as a “Spiritual essence, pure, divine” which purifies the vision of the favored mortals to whom it is given. Though awkwardly expressed here, the faith she held at fourteen in the God-given origin of her own artistic creativity would change little as she matured.

Through her early reading, Charlotte absorbed the influence of two distinct types of Romanticism which both informed her view of what the creative writer ought to be. On the one hand there was the visionary Romanticism found in her poem on the neglected genius. This enshrined the imagination as the “divine faculty,” which allowed the gifted individual to see beyond appearances into spiritual reality and was ultimately derived from Wordsworth, Coleridge, and lesser figures such as John Wilson of Blackwood’s. When Wilson exhorted “us visionaries” to apply their transcendent imaginations to a sublimely craggy landscape, Charlotte would have included herself in the invitation.

Charlotte quotes Wordsworth and Coleridge in her juvenilia, but in her prose writing she was less interested in their visionary aesthetic than in chronicling the political and amorous intrigues of the Angrian scene. As a result, the two authors she most admired in her late teens, and whose impact on her writing is most apparent, were Scott—she believed all other novels after his were “worthless”—and Byron. Scott’s legacy can be seen in her stories of abducted damsels and civil war, Byron’s in her cynical men-of-the-world narrators and her obsession with the amours of her aristocratic hero, Zamorna. Both writers were among the biggest celebrities of their age and would have informed Charlotte’s idea of what it was to achieve literary success.

Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832) was, as Carlyle put it in a review of Lockhart’s biography of 1837–38, “like some living mythological personage, and ranked among the chief wonders of the world.” Lord Byron (1788–1824) had not only been the most famous poet of his day, but had notoriously lived out his private life on the public stage. His glamour and fame were reinforced by Thomas Moore’s biography of 1830, which was devoured by the Brontë children. In a review, Macaulay commented on the interchangeability of the writer and the work, suggesting that Byron had consciously set out to become a legend: “He was himself the beginning, the middle, and the end of all his own poetry—the hero of every tale—the chief object of every landscape. Harold, Lara, Manfred, and a crowd of other characters, were universally considered merely as loose incognitos of Byron; and there is every reason to believe that he meant them to be so considered.”

After her death Charlotte Brontë would come to rival Byron in personal fame. But in her early prose fiction she was not so much trying to be Byron as to look through the keyhole onto Byronic scenes of aristocratic seducers and swooning ladies in glittering silks. Her contact with Byron’s life and works (including his racy Don Juan, which she had read herself by the time she was eighteen, but which she advised her ladylike friend Ellen Nussey to avoid) exposed her to the frank literary portrayal of sexuality which would reemerge, in modified form, in her adult novels to upset many readers of the 1840s and 1850s.

Instead of plunging directly into this risqué world of Angrian amours, Charlotte habitually described it through the eyes of a noncommital narrator, “Charles Townshend.” This was a safety valve designed to prevent her from getting too involved. For she was beginning to feel increasingly guilty about her reliance on this secret fantasy life, which jarred more and more with the social identity she was expected to develop as the demure daughter of the local parson, whose duties included organizing tea parties for Sunday-school teachers who would never have suspected what was going on in their young hostess’s mind.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations
Preface and Acknowledgments
1 To Be for Ever Known 3
2 Poor Miss Bronte 30
3 Life into Lieterature 62
4 The Angel in the House 88
5 Secrets and Psychobiography 120
6 Fiction and Feminism 152
7 Interpreting Emily 185
8 A Woman Worthy of Being Avoided 223
9 The Mystic of the Moors 251
Notes 289
Select Bibliography 329
Index 339
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

Chapter 1
To Be For Ever Known

If the twenty-year-old Charlotte Brontë had been told that she would one day be a household name, that her picture would hang in a future National Portrait Gallery, and that pilgrims would travel to Haworth on her account from as far away as Japan, she would have been delighted but not altogether surprised. The image of the Brontës presented in Charlotte's own "Biographical Notice" of her sisters casts them as "unobtrusive women" shunning fame. Yet Charlotte's early ambition was not merely to write but "to be for ever known."

By the time she died, at the age of nearly thirty-nine, in 1855, she had indeed become a celebrity. Two years later, with the publication of Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Brontë, she became a legend. Yet her journey from private individual to public persona was less straightforward than her naive twenty-year-old self might have hoped. Instead of a triumphant progress out of obscurity into the "light & glory" of literary renown, she would have to travel a tortuous route, characterized as much by evasion and self-effacement as by self-exposure.

She soon realized that, as a woman writing in an age in which "authoresses" were "liable to be looked upon with prejudice," it was expedient to disguise herself under a male-sounding pseudonym if she was to make her work public. In her novels, that pseudonym would give her the freedom to use her own emotional life as the basis of her art, allowing her to revolutionize the imaginative presentation of women's inner lives. She was so uninhibited in her portrayal of the female psyche that her heroines shocked many of her contemporaries and wereaccused of unwomanly assertion, morbid passion, and anti-Christian individualism.

So when her pseudonym began to slip and her real identity became known in literary circles, Charlotte had to seek out a new sort of protective "veil" to distract attention from the unacceptable elements of her fiction and deflect attacks on her personal morality. She found this shield in her social persona as the modest spinster daughter of a country parson, disingenuously insisting to those she met on the literary circuit that she bore no more than a fleeting external resemblance to the rebellious Jane Eyre. Unlike the French novelist George Sand (1804-76), who wore men's clothes and took a stream of high-profile lovers, Charlotte never sought a bohemian lifestyle. Sand's novels, with their frank portrayal of female desire, may have influenced her writing. But Charlotte the clergyman's daughter was not prepared to sacrifice her respectability. She was well aware that she lived in a society where "publicity . . . for a woman . . . is degrading if it is not glorious" and where the line between celebrity and notoriety was perilously thin.

If Charlotte Brontë was her own mythologizer, she invented two distinct and conflicting myths, the second designed to deflect attention from the first. One was the positive myth of female self-creation embodied by her autobiographical heroines, Jane Eyre and Lucy Snowe, who forge their own sense of selfhood in conflict with their social environment. The other, which eventually inspired the saintly heroine of Elizabeth Gaskell's Life of Charlotte Brontë, was a quiet and trembling creature, reared in total seclusion, a martyr to duty, and a model of Victorian femininity, whose sins against convention, if she had unwittingly committed any, could be explained away by her isolated upbringing and the sufferings she had endured. Both had their elements of truth in aspects of Charlotte Brontë's private character, but both were imaginative constructs, consciously developed.

Charlotte's perception of the writer's self as material for mythology derived from her Romantic inheritance, as did the lifelong belief in her own genius, which enabled her to achieve what she did in literature against the odds. Her youthful faith in writing as a route to immortal fame had been established early on in childhood. Because of the way her public image was molded after her death, her family has, over the past century and a half, been primarily remembered for its tragedies. But what made her able to transform herself into one of the major novelists of the nineteenth century was the fact that she grew up steeped in literature, defining herself as a writer from a very young age. Charlotte was five when her mother died and eight when she was sent with her sisters to the Clergy Daughters' School at Cowan Bridge, where the eldest two, Maria and Elizabeth, contracted the tuberculosis that killed them. Yet within a year or so of these damaging experiences, Charlotte had recovered sufficiently to form an intense bond with her three surviving siblings, Branwell, Emily, and Anne, in boisterous imaginative games fueled by the literary tastes their father encouraged. Like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who talked metaphysics with his infant son Hartley, the Reverend Patrick Brontë took a Romantic interest in his children's development and encouraged their precocity.

Charlotte and Branwell later recorded how their "plays" began in 1826 with the present of a box of toy soldiers. In real life, death had intruded as an arbitrary force. In play, they could take control when, as four gigantic Genii, they held the power of life and death over the diminutive wooden men. Soon, they began to make tiny magazines for the soldiers, writing out their own compositions in microscopic script. This scribblemania continued long after they had outgrown the toys which had originally inspired it and eventually became a purely literary adventure. By the time they were into their teens, their understanding of the term "Genius" was more metaphorical than it had been, but no less potent. Eventually, the siblings split off into two separate camps, Charlotte and Branwell chronicling the history of the imaginary kingdom of Angria while Emily and Anne invented their own fantasy world, Gondal.

At an early age, the young Brontës formed a habit of treating writers as heroes. In one game, played when they were aged between seven and eleven, each had to pick an island and its chief men. Their chosen leaders included literary figures such as Sir Walter Scott, J. G. Lockhart, Leigh Hunt, and "Christopher North" (John Wilson) of Blackwood's magazine, all of whom were clearly believed to be as powerful as a man of action like the Duke of Wellington, who was also selected. Though Emily's and Anne's early prose has not survived, Angria and its predecessor Glass Town are vividly documented in Charlotte's and Branwell's voluminous juvenilia, which reveal their fantasy world as a place where writers were important figures.

Charlotte's early-established belief in the writer as an exceptional individual derived from her sophisticated childhood and teenage reading and continued into adulthood. During the 1820s and 1830s, Blackwood's magazine, and later Fraser's, formed the core of her cultural education. Unlike today's magazines, these periodicals were not mere ephemera but would have been kept and reread like books. They offered an often highbrow mix of poetry, fiction, satire, criticism, philosophy, history, and political commentary, often sustained to booklike length. Blackwood's, in particular, turned its contributors into cult figures, such as James Hogg, "the Ettrick Shepherd." A serialized "Gallery of Literary Characters" in Fraser's during 1832 reinforced the celebrity status of the writer. Steeped in the fallout from the Romantic movement, these magazines fostered the belief that poets were not mere linguistic craftsmen, but privileged souls whose personalities were as important as their actual literary output. One Blackwood's article on Byron in 1828 casually refers to "Great Poets" as "the Chosen Few." Another, two years later, also on Byron, describes famous poets as "fixed stars" forming their own "celestial clubs."

In their imaginary city of Glass Town, Charlotte and Branwell could aspire to join this heavenly clique by writing poetry and prose under the pseudonyms of their favorite characters. These alter egos were all, without exception, men. As Christine Alexander points out, writing was regarded in the Brontë household as "very much a male domain." At this stage, Charlotte had no conscious anxiety about unquestioningly identifying herself with the power and privilege of her narrators, who were male simply because she had few female models to emulate (there was no Jane Austen, for example, on the Parsonage shelves). The conflict between her gender and her desire to write would only become explicit later, particularly when she made contact with the real-life world of professional letters. Even so, it still provoked latent tensions in her juvenilia which would not be finally exploded until Jane Eyre, in which she used woman's voice. Charlotte's best mature fiction is remarkable for the subjective intensity of its female first-person narrators, but in her juvenilia she tended to adopt the pose of a cynical and detached male narrator. Something held her back from total engagement, except as a voyeur.

When thirteen-year-old Branwell threw himself enthusiastically into the character of Young Soult, an inspired poet, fourteen-year-old Charlotte could only stand back and mock in a satirical drama, The Poetaster. Soult is turned into Henry Rhymer, a drunken coward who writes trite little verses about his own Orphic powers, stamps his foot, and treats his social superiors with absurd flattery one minute, insults the next. When Lord Charles Wellesley, Charlotte's cynical alter ego, reads Rhymer's effusions, he can hardly contain his giggles. Rhymer ends up being kicked out of the room by another of Charlotte's alter egos, the Angrian prose author Captain Tree. Rhymer responds by murdering the unfortunate Tree, but is reprieved on the gallows when Tree is magically brought back to life.

There is no doubt that Branwell at this age could be infuriatingly bumptious and probably deserved everything he got. Yet the very mercilessness of Charlotte's attack suggests how threatened and excluded she felt by her brother's confident identification with the poet who knows that after his death he will become (quoting the Blackwood's article on Byron of a few months before) "a fixed star ascending to the heaven of literature and there establishing its glory, in the midst of poets which are its fellows, to all eternity." This is Henry Rhymer speaking in Charlotte's satire, but his words sound remarkably similar to her own Romantic ideals. Indeed, his Keatsian belief that true poetry comes as naturally as the leaves to the tree-"The thoughts should come spontaneously as I write or they're not the inspiration of genius"-is almost identical with the credo earnestly expressed by Charlotte thirteen years later. In an essay written while she was studying in Brussels in 1843, she argued that for the true poet "inspiration takes the place of reflection" and that "the man of genius produces, without work." If the teenage Charlotte found her brother's posturing unbearable, it was because she would herself have liked to identify with the high Romantic conception of the man of genius, but felt prohibited from giving herself fully to the fantasy because she was a girl.

When Charlotte does write in a nonsatirical poetic voice, we find her bewailing the fate of the "neglected genius" who dies unrecognized:

None can tell the bitter anguish Of those lofty souls that languish, With grim penury still dwelling: Quenched by frowns their sacred fire, All their powers within them swelling, Tortured by neglect to ire.

It may be written in the voice of the Angrian Marquis of Douro, but this poem reflects Charlotte's angry sense of her own unacknowledged worth. In it, she goes on to address Genius as a "Spiritual essence, pure, divine" which purifies the vision of the favored mortals to whom it is given. Though awkwardly expressed here, the faith she held at fourteen in the God-given origin of her own artistic creativity would change little as she matured.

Through her early reading, Charlotte absorbed the influence of two distinct types of Romanticism which both informed her view of what the creative writer ought to be. On the one hand there was the visionary Romanticism found in her poem on the neglected genius. This enshrined the imagination as the "divine faculty," which allowed the gifted individual to see beyond appearances into spiritual reality and was ultimately derived from Wordsworth, Coleridge, and lesser figures such as John Wilson of Blackwood's. When Wilson exhorted "us visionaries" to apply their transcendent imaginations to a sublimely craggy landscape, Charlotte would have included herself in the invitation.

Charlotte quotes Wordsworth and Coleridge in her juvenilia, but in her prose writing she was less interested in their aesthetic than in chronicling the political and amorous intrigues of the Angrian scene. As a result, the two authors she most admired in her late teens, and whose impact on her writing is most apparent, were Scott-she believed all other novels after his were "worthless"-and Byron. Scott's legacy can be seen in her stories of abducted damsels and civil war, Byron's in her obsession with the amours of her aristocratic hero, Zamorna. Both writers were among the biggest celebrities of their age and would have informed Charlotte's idea of what it was to achieve literary success.

Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) was, as Carlyle put it in a review of Lockhart's biography of 1837-38, "like some living mythological personage, and ranked among the chief wonders of the world." Lord Byron (1788-1824) had not only been the most famous poet of his day, but had notoriously lived out his private life on the public stage. His glamour and fame were reinforced by Thomas Moore's biography of 1830, which was devoured by the Brontë children. In a review, Macaulay commented on the interchangeability of the writer and the work, suggesting that Byron had consciously set out to become a legend: "He was himself the beginning, the middle, and the end of all his own poetry-the hero of every tale-the chief object of every landscape. Harold, Lara, Manfred, and a crowd of other characters, were universally considered merely as loose incognitos of Byron; and there is every reason to believe that he meant them to be so considered."

After her death Charlotte Brontë would come to rival Byron in personal fame. But in her early prose fiction she was not so much trying to be Byron as to look through the keyhole onto Byronic scenes of aristocratic seducers and swooning ladies in glittering silks.28 Her contact with Byron's life and works (including his sexy Don Juan, which she had read herself by the time she was eighteen, but which she advised her ladylike friend Ellen Nussey to avoid)29 exposed her to the frank literary portrayal of sexuality which would reemerge, in modified form, in her adult novels to upset many readers of the 1840s and 1850s.
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 5
( 1 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(1)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Posted March 26, 2012

    Wonderful: a Must for any Bronte enthusiast

    Lucasta Miller does an excellent job of clearing the clutter that
    surrounds the Bronte family and Howarth Parsonage and tells us a much more compelling and complex story.
    Not to be missed by any Bronte fan, and the book casts a refreshing light on familiar stories. Excellent.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)