Why couldn’t Mr. Rochester just divorce Bertha, or have the marriage annulled? My understanding is that 19th century English law would allow for divorce in the case of insanity. But in Chapter XXVII, as he explains the story to Jane, he says, “And I could not rid myself of it by any legal proceedings: for the doctors now discovered that my wife was mad – her excesses had prematurely developed the germs of insanity…” Is this artistic fudging on Bronte’s part?
Also: In Chapter XXV, the night before the wedding, Jane tells Rochester of her experience with the mysterious night visitor and asks him for an explanation. He says, “…When we have been married a year and a day, I will tell you; but not now.” Does this mean that after a year and a day, there would be no way for her to have their marriage annulled?
I always thought it was something like they wouldn’t annul the marriage because the woman wouldn’t be able to provide/care for herself otherwise.
As for telling Jane, he probably thought she’d get mad or upset and leave him or something. I guess after a year he could be pretty sure she’d stick around.
To be honest it never really mattered to me. That’s one of my favourite books ever.
It is my understanding that only after the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act (10 years after Jane Eyre was written), were adultery, cruelty, or desertion used as grounds for divorce in England. Before that time, divorces were extremely rare and expensive and were only granted through a private act of Parliament. Since Bertha was guilty of none of those things, plus being insane, Rochester could not obtain a divorce.
I interpreted the year and a day quote to mean after that period of time elapsed it would be unlikely Jane would desert him and divorcing him would be nearly impossible (since she would have no independant money, friends, or influence).
Interesting question. In fact, Bertha is guilty of adultery – Mr. Rochester describes her as “intemperate and unchaste.” I suppose he could be unable to prove it, or the court might consider him obligated to care for her as jinwicked suggests – but why couldn’t Richard Mason assume guardianship of his sister? It seems more likely that Rochester wants to be the one to care for her. Possibly his motives are benign (Victorian insane asylums were pretty miserable places, after all), but I wouldn’t be surprised if he rather enjoys contemplating her degradation.
As much as I love the book, Rochester is a fairly nasty character at this point – manipulative, dishonest, contemptuous of anybody who falls short of his strict standards. (I like to imagine he reforms at the end, but maybe it’s the hopeless romantic in me coming out.)
Being “unchaste” could mean a. Bertha has participated in extra-marital affairs or b. Bertha behaves immodestly; not in accordance to Victorian values or Rochester’s strict expectations of a wife. Given the facts presented in Jane Eyre (Rochester and Bertha shared a deeply sexual relationship that Rochester feared/Bertha’s behavior resulted from being raised in an environment that clashed with Rochesther’s values and breeding), the latter seems more likely. Since Rochester had no grounds to divorce Bertha in West Indies. he has her declared insane and packs her up for England, where her resulting insanity, caused by confinement and cruelty, not family history, results in Rochester being unable to divorce her. (It wasn’t until the early 20th century that insanity was grounds for divorce.) Also, you have to realize how suspect Rochester’s side of the story is, since he now desperately wants to divorce Bertha and marry Jane.
Rochester could not pass off gaurdianship to Bertha’s brother, since through marriage he obtained full legal custody of Bertha. To abandon her would be a mark on his honor. Instead, he punishes her for her inability to conform to his values and wishes by keeping her locked up, which eventually results in her madness. Remember, only after he has confined her for many years has she become progressively violent.
Also, Bronte totally immasculated Rochester by the end of the book (blindness/lameness/broken spirit) thereby robbing him of his physical and sexual potency, resulting in a kinder, gentler Rochester that can be pitied by the audience and cared for by Jane. It is doubtful his behavior wold have changed without the fire.
I just want to say how impressed I am by the spoiler warning! Even 150 years after the fact, there are still people who don’t want to know how a book ends before they’ve read it.
According to this timeline of British history, insanity was not added to the list of grounds for divorce until 1937.
(hijack) If you haven’t already come across it, try reading Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys for a take on this story from Bertha’s point of view.