Impact: Jane Eyre

The Woman Behind the Bell

Charlotte Brontë was born in 1816 in Thornton, Yorkshire, the third of six children of an Irish clergyman. Her mother died when Charlotte was five. Two of her sisters died in childhood, likely from conditions contracted at the brutal boarding school they attended — a school Brontë would later transmute into Lowood Institution in Jane Eyre, with its fever epidemics and deliberately insufficient food. The loss was not abstract material. It was memory.

She spent years working as a governess — educated, cultured, but employed as a kind of upper servant, granted neither the dignity of family nor the camaraderie of staff. She studied in Brussels, fell into a complicated and probably unrequited attachment to her married teacher Constantin Heger, and came home to Haworth to write. By the time she sat down to draft Jane Eyre, she had accumulated a precise understanding of what it meant to be a woman of intelligence and feeling with almost no social power. Jane Eyre is not autobiographical, but it is saturated in autobiography.

She also had two sisters doing the same thing. Emily was writing Wuthering Heights and Anne was writing Agnes Grey. All three novels appeared within months of each other in 1847, published under the Bell pseudonyms. The Brontë sisters had agreed not to tell anyone — not even their publisher — that they were siblings, or women.

A Sensation, Then a Scandal

The initial reception was extraordinary. William Makepeace Thackeray, already a famous novelist, received an advance copy and wrote that he had been sitting up until two in the morning unable to put it down. He sent a note to the publisher saying it was a work of "great genius." The first print run vanished almost immediately. A second followed. Then a third.

Then came the backlash. As readers began to suspect — and eventually confirm — that Currer Bell was a woman, the critical tone shifted. Elizabeth Rigby, writing in the Quarterly Review in 1848, delivered one of the era's most nakedly ideological reviews: she called the book "pre-eminently an anti-Christian composition" and declared that if the author was indeed a woman, she must be one who had "long forfeited the society of her own sex." The objection was not to Brontë's prose. It was to Jane's refusal to accept her station without protest, her insistence on emotional equality with Rochester, her barely suppressed rage at the conditions of her life. Rigby understood exactly what the book was doing. She just thought it was dangerous.

It was. Jane Eyre appeared eleven years before John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and nearly twenty years before The Subjection of Women. It articulated a feminist argument not through philosophy but through a character so vivid that readers felt her indignation as their own.

What the Book Is Really About

On the surface: an orphaned girl grows up unloved, survives a grim school, becomes a governess, falls for her brooding employer, discovers he has a secret wife locked in the attic, flees, nearly dies on the moors, inherits a fortune, and returns to marry him after the wife has burned the house down. It sounds like a plot that should not work. It works completely.

But the engine underneath that plot is something more persistent: the question of what a person owes herself. The novel opens with Jane, age ten, hiding behind a curtain in the window seat at Gateshead — precisely as she appears in the chapter excerpt — reading Bewick's History of British Birds, imagining Arctic wastelands and broken ships and solitary rocks. She is already, in these first pages, a consciousness that has retreated into its own interior life because the exterior world has made clear it has no room for her. Mrs. Reed excludes her from the family circle. She is told, explicitly, that until she learns to seem more pleasant and less herself, she must remain apart.

That early image — Jane shrined in "double retirement" behind red curtains, studying images of desolate, frozen places — sets up everything that follows. The novel is about the tension between interior life and social survival, between self-respect and the thousand daily pressures that ask women especially to give it up. Jane refuses, repeatedly, at great cost. She refuses John Reed. She refuses St. John Rivers, who wants to conscript her selfhood in the name of God. She refuses Rochester, even in love, when he asks her to stay on terms that would require her to become something lesser.

"I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will." It is one of the most quoted lines in Victorian literature, and it still lands because the condition it describes has not fully disappeared.

The Problem of Bertha Mason

No honest account of Jane Eyre's legacy can skip past Bertha Mason, the Creole woman Rochester has locked in the attic at Thornfield Hall. She is the "madwoman," his legal wife, the secret that detonates the novel's central romance. For most of the book's history, she was read as a Gothic plot device — the obstacle to Jane's happiness.

In 1966, the novelist Jean Rhys published Wide Sargasso Sea, which tells the story from Bertha's point of view — her original name was Antoinette, she was a Jamaican heiress, and her madness was at least partly manufactured by Rochester's treatment of her and by a colonial system that gave him the right to dispose of her. Rhys's novel transformed how readers understood Brontë's. Suddenly Bertha was not a monster but a victim, and the novel's moral clarity about Jane's suffering existed in an uncomfortable relationship with its near-total erasure of another woman's. This is not a reason to read Jane Eyre less; it is a reason to read it more carefully, and ideally alongside Wide Sargasso Sea.

The scholarly and critical conversation that Rhys sparked — about race, empire, and whose interiority Victorian fiction found worth representing — has been one of the most productive debates in literary studies for the past fifty years. Jane Eyre generated it. Books that generate that kind of argument tend to matter.

Cultural Footprint

Few Victorian novels have been adapted as relentlessly. There have been at least seven major film versions, including ones starring Orson Welles (1943), Timothy Dalton (1983), and Michael Fassbender (2011). There have been multiple television adaptations, a Broadway musical, a BBC radio serial, and an opera. The basic architecture of the novel — plain, intelligent heroine; brooding, powerful man with a secret; isolated country house; fire — has been borrowed so many times that it essentially founded the Gothic romance genre as a commercial category. Every time a novel is described as being about a young woman who takes a mysterious position in a grand house and falls for its troubled owner, it is describing a book written in Jane Eyre's shadow.

The character of Rochester has had a particular afterlife. He is the template for the romantic hero who is not conventionally good — morally compromised, emotionally volatile, redeemable only through the love of a woman who sees through his performance of power. This figure runs from Victorian sensation fiction straight through to twentieth-century mass-market romance, to Heathcliff, to Edward Cullen. The debt is rarely acknowledged but it is structural.

The phrase "Reader, I married him" — Jane's address to the reader at the novel's conclusion — has become one of the most parodied, referenced, and celebrated sentences in English fiction. It appears on tote bags and tattoos. It has been riffed on in novels, films, and television shows for over a century. What makes it endure is its grammar: the active verb, the fact that Jane announces her marriage as her own act rather than something that happened to her.

Reading It Now

There is a temptation, with canonical novels that have been praised for the same reasons since secondary school syllabi existed, to feel that you already know what they are. Jane Eyre resists this. It is stranger and funnier and more uncomfortable than its reputation suggests. Rochester's courtship of Jane involves an extended scene in which he disguises himself as a fortune-telling gypsy woman — a scene that is bizarre, manipulative, and oddly comic all at once. St. John Rivers, the clergyman who nearly destroys Jane through sheer cold virtue, is one of the most unsettling characters in Victorian fiction: not a villain but something almost worse, a man who mistakes his ambition for holiness.

Brontë's prose has a quality that resists easy summary. It is interior in a way that feels modern — the novel's famous psychological directness was genuinely new in 1847, and the first-person voice is so consistent and so pressurized that it still reads as urgent. The opening chapter, with its ten-year-old Jane barricaded behind her curtain in the window seat, immersed in images of Arctic desolation and broken ships while the family warmth proceeds without her, is one of the most economical character introductions in the English novel. In four pages, you know everything essential about who Jane is and why she will spend the rest of the book refusing to become anyone else.

Charlotte Brontë died in 1855, at thirty-eight, likely from complications of pregnancy. She had been married less than a year. She did not live to see her book become what it became. What she left behind is a novel about the survival of a self — specific, undecorated, and stubborn — in conditions designed to extinguish it. That remains, against all odds, worth reading.

Further Reading & Resources

Related Works in Our Library