I chose this copy of Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte because I feel it captures this biography more than the copy I have. My copy has a portrait of Bronte alone in the middle of the cover. This portrait is a little prettier too than the picture above.
But the cover above shows what this book really is: a portrait of two authors, though the portrait of Gaskell herself is unintentional. But how can you write a biography of a friend and not portray yourself in the telling?
In her life, Gaskell's biography of Bronte was controversial, and it continues to be so in her life. The man who inspired Mr. Brocklehurst of Lowood School resented the implication that he, even indadvertedly, caused the death of the two oldest Bronte sisters. The woman (whose name is not mentioned) who had an affair with Branwell Bronte resented the implication that she seduced him. The reviewer who speculated early in their careers that the "brothers Bell" were one author writing under three names, resented his idea being mocked. The reviewer who attacked the morality of Jane Eyre and its author resented Gaskell's scathing defense of her friend. All of these people sued Gaskell for liable and she had to revise the book several times, taming down these aspects of her work.
But today the book is attacked by critics for beginning the idea of the "Bronte myth." Did Gaskell choose the prettier portrait, like the one on my cover, or the more realistic one? She is accused by modern readers and reviewers of sanctifying her subject, taming down anything that did not present the picture of the saintly, lonely, domestic, yet brilliant, woman whose life was marred by tragedy.
One of the main reasons for this attack is that it is almost certain that Gaskell knew of and suppressed several letters where Charlotte declared her love for her married former tutor. Modern readers like to speculate about how far this relationship in fact went. I think these are the same people who read about the relationship of Jonathan and David and assume it must have been homosexual in nature. They like to read this interpretation into the Lord of the Rings and other books of masculine relationships. Deep love most always be sexual, right? So seems their logic at least. So, how is it possible that Charlotte could have such a deep love if it was unrequited.
What would have happened if the love had not been unrequited is impossible to know. But reading them, it seems clear that the love affair was one-sided, entirely on Charlotte's. And perhaps this is enough of a reason why a friend would suppress them. Take the following excerpt:
"Monsieur, the poor do not need a great deal to live on — they ask only the crumbs of bread which fall from the rich man’s table — but if they are refused these crumbs — they die of hunger — No more do I need a great deal of affection from those I love — I would not know what to do with a whole and complete friendship — I am not accustomed to it — but you showed a little interest in me in days gone by when I was your pupil in Brussels — and I cling to the preservation of this little interest — I cling to it as I would cling on to life."
I told my husband about this section. Later that day he described something as "clingy like a Bronte sister." Could you reveal this private pain of a friend of yours, even after her death?
And that is the crux of this biography. What pains and personal struggles do you reveal of your friend? And for many of them, Gaskell chose to allow Bronte's own words do the work. Letter after letter revealing her loneliness.
And so I am confused by those who feel this image of a lonely woman was contrived by Gaskell herself. Her loneliness seems only natural. Her time in a boarding school, in Brussels, as a governess, all separated her from her family. And this separation had one great cause: money. And when the sisters finally were able to life together again, they had little society outside of their family circle.
I am also confused by the accusation that this book unfairly portrays the Bronte sisters' lives as marked by tragedy. Charlotte lost her mother young. Shortly after she lost her two elder sisters, thrusting her to the "head of the family" in many ways. But the deepest tragedies come years later. The chapters where Branwell, Emily, and Anne die within nine months of each other is heartrending, not from overly melodramatic writing of Gaskell, but from the facts themselves.
Life is a series of stories, but it isn't a novel. And that maybe what some critics dislike in this book. a novelist may have felt a need to impose a plot arc. Did Charlotte always desire fame? I came across one quote in a review that said early in life she wished to be famous (I can't seem to find it again). And yet, this is the woman who published under a pseudonym for years. Why? Was she truly so shy? Perhaps. Or perhaps she was just maddened with the idea of not being viewed as a novelist, but merely as a "woman novelist." In one letter presented in the biography, Charlotte said, "I wish you did not think me a woman. I wish all reviewers believed 'Currer Bell' to be a man; they would be more just to him. You will, I know, keep measuring me by some standard of what you deem becoming to my sex..."
Gaskell had an interpretation of her friend's life. All biographers have an interoperation of their subjects lives. Perhaps Gaskell's interpretation was as guided by her love for a departed friend as truth. But still, the book is a fascinating depiction of a woman portrayed by a fascinating woman. It is the first popular biography of a woman and the first popular biography by a woman. And reading Charlotte's letters, I feel I have come to know the woman a little more. It has even convinced me to try rereading Wuthering Heights (more on this later).
Is it a perfect biography? Well, perhaps a biography shouldn't be written within two years of its subject's death by a friend. But many of the women intellectuals and writers that followed stand on the shoulders of the Bronte sisters and Mrs. Gaskell. But more than an admiration for their accomplishments as writers and trailblazers, I find I really wish I could have them over tea. Remember when Rory Gilmore wanted to invite Charlotte Bronte to her slumber party? Well, so do I.
Comments
Post a Comment