Can you think of how else names & naming are important in the novel Jane Eyre?

I think it’s interesting that, in terms of the possessive naming language used in the novel, Mr. Rochester attempts to “own” Jane with how he names her, but in the end, it is he that is “owned” by her in becoming her “my Edward”.

Rochester and his mental gymnastics are wild. I love Jane so much, she has such a clear sense of right and wrong.

Thank you so much for this video. Being Caribbean, I remember when I first read this book in 9th grade and feeling a strange connection to Bertha. We were both "immigrants" in a new land not quite fitting in. Although I read this book decades ago I always felt this othering/xenophobia of the foreign women in the novel upsetting. Whether it's Celine taking lovers and abandoning her child, Adele being poorly behaved, Bertha being insane, or even Mr Rochester dressing up as a Gypsy woman there seems to be this fear of the foreign and the threat that it causes the British. It's important to also root the text in the era of colonialism and how it framed the gaze of the British Empire outward.

Two other interesting uses of naming occur to me. When young Jane tells off Mrs. Reed (Jane’s blood uncle’s wife) for her cruelty, she says that she will never call her “aunt” again. But later, when Jane returns to Mrs. Reed’s deathbed, she does call her aunt, showing that she has forgiven her, as a good Christian should. She is rewarded by Mrs. Reed’s revelation that when Jane’s surviving uncle inquired after Jane, Mrs. Reed said she was dead. Later, after fleeing from Mr. Rochester after the interrupted wedding, Jane finds refuge at Moor House, but she tells St. John, Diana and Mary that her name is Jane Elliott. She admits that it is not her real name, and explains that she is hiding from past associations. Not only has Jane Rochester not been born, but Jane Eyre has to be buried in this false identity. But Jane Eyre still lives, and her true identity is revealed after Jane has become self-sufficient again as a schoolmistress. This revelation of the real Jane leads to further independence, by allowing St. John to identify her as the heir to the fortune of the long-lost uncle who was deceived by Mrs. Reed.

I picture Bronte coming upon "imbruted" in Paradise Lost and saying to herself, "Ooh, I'm going to have to use that one."

The very title of the novel also reaffirms Jane's individual independence. "Jane EYRE: an AUTOBIOGRAPHY", which is narrated by the "future" Jane who has been married to Rochester for ten years. And yet, the title of her autobiography is "Jane EYRE". Brilliant video! Thank you Dr. Cox and greetings from Brazil!

One thing I always thought was interesting was Mr. Mason, as you put it, declaring an impediment to their marriage was, in fact, responsible for concealing an impediment to Miss. Mason's marriage to Mr. Rochester. It is strongly implied if my memory doesn't deceive me, that her family knew she was unstable which was one of the reasons for marrying her to a foreigner (Mr. Rochester) who didn't know her history. I don't know about the Anglican church at the time, but in the Catholic church undisclosed mental instability is grounds for an annulment (a declaration that the basic requirements for marriage did not exist and that therefore the marriage is null as though it had never happened.) While in neither church is madness after the marriage grounds for a divorce.

I love this book so much. I first read it as a teenager and read it again every 5 years or so and find something new in it. It has become clearer over time that Jane really was a vulnerable young woman navigating a world where all the men she encountered tried to categorize her (liar, willful, elf, angel, missionary) and ultimately Jane rejected all the labels. I remember being young and only seeing the romance of it and now I can see the novel is all about the maturing of a girl to a woman on her own terms.

I’ve read the novel at the age of 15 for the first time. It was in russian, a soviet translation, which, as I’ve discovered later, didn’t contain all the text, lacking some “religious” paragraphs, where Jane and Helen were talking about God, St. John’s monologues have been simplified, also some of Jane’s internal reflections missed, which in the original text give us an appropriate understanding of her independent and strong nature. But this “name” thing wasn’t and perhaps couldn’t be brought to life in a translation, and when I’ve read the original for the first time I remember I thought that Rochester didn’t want to be associated with his farther and his brother at first place and after marrying Bertha Mason he completely considered his name, his family name, depraved. But after all he was Rochester by law, so he tried to distance Bertha from this name, never calling her Mrs. Rochester. The last attempt to revive his name was by giving it to Jane, whom he considered to be innocent and clean and unspoiled. At last the only event that released him from his burden, was Bertha Masons death, not because she herself was a burden but because he carried his name by law and reminded him of how his farther and brother treated him. That’s why Jane is called “Jane” at the end of the novel and Rochester is called “Edward”, he was finally freed...

Fascinating, thank you! I've read this book almost every year since I was 11 and it's my favorite. This analysis was wonderful. Another thing I picked up on is that, in the beginning of the last chapter, Jane emphasizes that SHE was the one to marry HIM. Instead of "I was married" or "We were married," the sentence is an active one. She made the choice to marry him. I just love her independence.

Speaking of naming - when my daughter was in high school they read Jane Eyre and had to do a project around the novel. My daughter and her classmate decided to do a "Jane Eyre Cook Book." The best recipe was the "Bertha Mason Flambay (sic)" They got an A+ for the project.

I’ve always found Rochester to be extremely manipulative, but I had not considered that he also used names to force perceptions about his wife. I think Jane deserved better than him, but I’m glad that she retained her own identity as “I” in the end. Thank you for a great analysis!

I'd never thought of this before, but it's really interesting how important the name is to Rochester. There's a reason that people say it's not a person's reputation that's been tarnished, but rather their good name. Rochester takes the fascination that old English families have with their names, their ancestral lines, and turns into an obsession, helped along by Bertha Mason. It's like he's convinced that by marrying Jane, she can blow away the dirt that his union with Bertha Mason brought upon his name, not to mention the dirt that his father and his brother cast on their own name by forcing him into such a union. (There's a novel called "Mr. Rochester" by Sarah Shoemaker that narrates Mr. Rochester's life, beginning from his boyhood and going all through his relationships first with Bertha, then Celine Varens, and finally Jane Eyre. There's one scene in it - no spoilers - in which it explains just how much his father and his brother sullied their name. It wasn't so much Bertha who did that, since she was already on her way to madness, but his own family caused the circumstances which led to the marriage. I know that's a different novel written 160 years later, but it offers a fresh perspective and a good explanation.) There was something else about Jane and the moniker, Jane Rochester. The morning after the proposal, when he says "is this my pale little elf?" and she responds that it doesn't seem real, he answers that he'll make it real. He holds up a letter he's written to his banker and asks the latter to send the jewels he has in his keeping. Rochester says he'll pour them into Jane's lap and she says, "then I won't be Jane Eyre any longer." She calls herself his "plain Quakerish governess," and remarks that she doesn't treat him as though he were handsome, so he shouldn't subsequently treat her as a beauty. She doesn't like the idea of changing her name, even though she knows it's what a woman is expected to do when she marries (but let's be honest, we all love Jane because she defies convention), but what really unnerves her is the fact that Rochester seems to want to remake her into a different person altogether. All he does is offer to give her some jewelry, probably some family heirlooms, and it unsettles her enough that she openly rejects her coming change in identity. Jane Rochester has just been conceived, and she already gets this sense that becoming Jane Rochester will change her as a person. That terrifies her. Even though she's getting married, she still wants to remain to her core Jane Eyre. That's why the ending is so cathartic, because she gets what she wants and remains herself to the core. Even though she's essentially Mrs. Rochester, she's never actually fixed with the label and is allowed to remain independent.

Your analysis was so interesting. I loved your conclusion of Jane being still independent and not swallowed up or losing her identity in her role as Mrs. Rochester at the novel’s end. This name thing between Bertha and Jane being important to Rochester-- I totally get it. I have often viewed Rochester as a victim of spousal abuse. (I am a survivor of it, that’s probably why.) True, he does lock Bertha up. But, she abused him previously and tries to burn him in bed! Bertha never was “Mrs. Rochester” in the true sense. His psychological distancing throughout the novel concerning Bertha seems to me to be a coping mechanism. It is a humiliation to be dealing with an abusive, cheating spouse. He had no chance for children, peaceful conversation, or comfort from her. Normal needs. This glittering beauty turned out to be a monstrous being. A total turn around in character often is a component of a toxic relationship. No wonder he can’t resist the calm, demure and intelligent Jane! I don’t agree that Rochester’s sufferings or being cheated into this marriage are “in his mind.” Firstly, the behavior of an abusive person, even one mentally ill, does cause real family suffering. When you are in this sort of situation it is hard to see past your own pain or have much sympathy for your abuser. You’re in a kind of permanent shocked condition. Secondly, aside from the Wide Saratoga Sea which I do not consider a true back story, he was fully bamboozled into marrying her. How would anyone feel being tricked into marrying a violent, unfaithful person? Mentally distancing was about all he could do to not go mad himself. In my opinion, Richard Mason confirms all that Mr. Rochester tells Jane of Bertha’s back story. After Mason is attacked, he says, “I thought I could do some good” fully aware of Bertha’s madness. In the carriage he pleads with Rochester to make sure she is cared for. Not to mention there is no denial by him during Rochester’s tell all to the group in church when he says the Masons “were silent on family secrets before.” Or Mason’s “we better leave her” in Bertha’s den because he knows what will follow. Mason’s sympathy is totally for Bertha but his guilt concerning Rochester is very telling. It is also interesting that Mason gets very moral preventing Jane’s marriage to Rochester but not so much 15 years earlier when marrying his sister off to Rochester. Some friend. Don’t get me wrong, I do have sympathy for Bertha. I wish there were more of it for her in the novel. It’s not her fault she was married off to rid her family of her burden. Rochester has no sympathy for Bertha through much of the novel. Yet in the end, he will not, he cannot idly stand by to watch her demise. He risks his life to save her from the fire she started, viewing her then as a person, someone he needs to protect and save rather than a demon. There he treats her as his wife. To me, this act is the beginning of his reformation and redemption.

Also the fact that Jane continues to call Rochester “Sir” for so long even after their admitted love deserves some context. Your previous conversation around classes and Jane Austen is informative here.

I’ve always loved this novel for how Jane’s been able to retain her individuality and own self despite there being so many louder personalities trying to overwhelm her. I love this, I never would have thought about the use and importance of the names in this novel.

Thank you for your very interesting analysis. It brings to mind the short story The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, told from the point of view of the “madwoman”, locked away in her bedroom by her unsympathetic, seemingly embarrassed husband. Both Bertha and the narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper are allowed no voice and no name by their respective husbands.

I have read 'Jane Eyre' intermittently since I was a little girl and I loved her because not only was she the person on the backfoot as it were, she was also full of independent thought. Mr. Rochester has a fixed narrative about his former wife perhaps initially as a survival strategy but also because the situation is unfair as he sees it. However, the law recognises his marriage. As regards names, Jane herself when he and she are discussing the fallout and the past, refers to her as 'that unfortunate lady' never Mrs. Rochester although she is more realistic about the situation than he is because the only option he is offering her is an infamous one for a respectable and religious girl. Jane has also had to grow up in an oppressive environment learning to value herself so she will consider her self-worth in her decisions. There is more to Mr. Rochester's disgust than his wife's mental health. He describes their first four years and uses the words 'intemperate', 'unchaste', 'excesses', so I believe that we the readers are meant to limit our compassion for this discarded wife because even before she was ill, she was questionable. I think he is also disgusted with himself because his recitation to Jane admits that he was once attracted to Bertha. This story plays out some strong human themes. One shudders to think what would have been the outcome had Jane 'married' him to learn later that it was an act of bigamy and where this may have left the rights of any children born to them.

I’ve always hated Rochester as the privileged bully who paints himself a victim. I’ve always thought Jane’s desire for him is a well-known pathological outcome that we can expect when a child is abused. Having been bullied by her rich cousin and aunt as a child (furthermore, the cousin claims victimhood!), having in her early adulthood, with very little contact with men, approval from the very same kind of powerful male is quite the head trip for Jane. I love that you bring up the most notorious 20th century use of “that woman.” I have one niggle, I think, around 8:46 “my wife-as you term that fearful hag” is pretty clearly stating that “my wife” is a term used by others and “hag” is the term he prefers. I think I heard you state the opposite.

It's fascinating that Jane thinks of the title of "Mrs. Rochester" as something to be "Birthed", as a "Birth" that is about to be revealed to her. And when the actual Mrs. Rochester is revealed, she is indeed "Bertha". It's as though Charlotte Bronte is foreshadowing for the reader, through Jane's internal monologue, who is about to appear.

Mr. Rochester has a weird habit where instead of speaking TO a woman, he'll observe them and then narrate the interaction for an imaginary audience made of other Mr. Rochesters, with little asides and literary references made to amuse him, not her. Like 90% of his mental energy was dedicated to distancing himself from his own self. To me, the nicknames and fixation with names were part of this defense mechanism. Like when he's trying to convince Jane not to leave it still feels like he's trying to convince the Imaginary Rochesters more than Jane herself. Then at the end he was so much more vulnerable and direct, stating his feelings plainly and listening to Jane's answers, like they were the only two people present.

I low-key feel bad for Bertha. Nowadays she would have had medical attention, not locked up in a tower. But at least Rochester didn't put her in a madhouse.

I first read this book when I was far too young in my early teens, and I especially appreciated how Mr. Rochester goes from being "master" to "my Edward" by the end of the book.

His "embruted" wife. Perhaps some of the meaning in the passage from Milton are there, but for me, the over-riding meaning is that in her insanity , Bertha has sunk almost to being as beast.... a mere animal. And this is supported by the fact that she then tries to bite him. "Ragout" is a basically a stew...... and while he emphasises the fierceness, an important characteristic of it is that it is a mixture with no order to it, like a roast of beef. This "ragout" symbolises her disordered mind and dishevelled appearance. She is crazy! I don't think that at this point in time that her previous extravagance or expensiveness has any relevance here .... it is about her disturbed mind.

Literally the best thing ever written imho. Ty for finally delving into the Brontes. Cant wait for more!

This is so beautiful. I read Jane Eyre as a teenager and I think it planted the fear in my mind that I will lose my identity in marriage. I never read it this way. Thank you for saving my favorite book in my memory. ❤️ I am honestly so relieved.

I wanted to respond to the book Wide Sargasso Sea, which is referenced below. The book tries to put forth the idea that Rochester himself was responsible for Bertha's deteriorating mental health. The hypothesis is that he dominated and imprisoned her, causing her mental breakdown. The idea is that she was a victim of colonialism and a male-dominated society. We have to remember that Charlotte Bronte uses Bertha as a literary device for Gothic suspense, horror, and violence, a monster to be saved from. Rochester contributes to the idea of her being a monster and threat by using all of those names and descriptions. I believe in the book, Jane Eyre, the hint is that Bertha started to go insane before they even left the island. Also, mental illness occurred in other members of her family. This would indicate it was a genetic condition, not a result of syphilis or oppression, as discussed by others and in the book referenced. Rochester felt he had no choice but to confine her when they returned to England. He was legally bound to her and legally responsible for whatever safety he could provide for her. Many women were caught in the post colonial male-- dominated world. In fact, ALL women throughout history were victims of male domination--- for thousands of years--- but they didn't all try to kill their husbands. Women have suffered terribly. Some developed crippling depression and some killed themselves because of the repression of women throughout history. Women have suffered from poverty because they came from a family which had no money or education. Women have suffered financially if they lost their husband, the primary earner. Women have suffered if their husbands drove up tremendous debts. Each woman dealt with oppression in a different way. Some women just submitted. Some became advocates for women's rights. Some even went into business for themselves, such as Rosa Lewis, who worked her way through service until she was in a position to be trained by top chefs in wealthy households. She became famous all over the world as the owner of an exclusive hotel and catering chef. Women like her were the exception, however. Many other brilliant and ambitious women-- I'm thinking of the literary giants--had to publish their works under male pseudonyms in order to be accepted by the public. Of course, Jane Eyre is such a novel. Thousands of talented female creative artists and scientists had to work an obscurity with the possibility their works would never be published and acknowledged. Finally, remembering that Bertha Mason is just a literary device, a fictional character created to serve a particular purpose, we have to remember that Charlotte Bronte could only work with the knowledge available in the mid-19th century regarding mental illness. Yes, when we look at Bertha Mason now, we have all kinds of opinions about what might have plagued her and how she could have been helped in the 21st century. I have a mental health disorder. I was very fortunate that treatments and medications were available, and that I didn't end up in a mental health hospital permanently. So if anybody is going to be compassionate to her, it's going to be me. And there are mental illnesses in which the patient is not violent at all and would have more of a tendency to harm themselves than others. But we are in the 21st century. Our points of view are valid for the continuing improvement of quality of life for people with mental disabilities. But our points of view is invalid when we view the works of writers of previous centuries with the knowledge we have now. They only knew what was known, and must not be held accountable for information beyond their time period. The book Wide Sargasso Sea was written in the 20th century. Charlotte Bronte could not zoom into the future, gain all kinds of insight into mental illness, and then zoom back to the mid-19th century and implemented in her book. If she had, it would have been a very different book. Bertha was created to a Gothic monster who threatened other people's lives and happiness. That was her purpose. I feel bad for her, but she's just a fictional character. Yes, literature not only reflects the reality of the time but can also influence reality. But I think people at that time simply saw her as a Gothic monster. Through the centuries, we have learned not to do that. People are humans and deserve our compassion and help. We also have to remember that the character of Jane Eyre went through tremendous suffering, living with an aunt who didn't love her and cousins who abused her. Jane was so glad to get away from that house, but ended up in a residential school where there was continued abuse and deprivation. These horrific circumstances existed in the 19th century. Dickens wrote about them all the time. In this way, authors raised awareness of the atrocious conditions in which orphaned and underprivileged children were living. Improvements were made because of such writings. Since Bronte wanted Jane to develop a good character, Bronte kept putting excellent female role models into her life. Jane had a choice to attain an excellent character despite her despicable abusers. Charlotte Bronte does discuss abusive situations, but she describes Bertha Mason as destined to have declining mental health because it ran in her family. Rochester's father didn't tell him that because he was primarily interested that his son should benefit from Bertha's Fortune. This kind of mercenary attitude was prevalent in all Western societies and probably other societies around the world. Oppression existed on many levels in the 19th century. It had its effects on those who were victims of it. They either coped or submitted or defeated their oppression, or they were defeated by it. This is one of the main themes of the book, but it's not the main theme of Dr Cox's lecture. So let's remember that when Charlotte Bronte wrote the book, she lived in the mid-19th century. She thought later about the character of Bertha Mason and regretted using her as a literary device, as a monster. But Bertha Mason was there and served her Gothic function. She believed she killed Rochester and was driven to kill herself, probably choosing to leap from the height rather than burn in the blaze she created. Rochester survived the fire and was freed from her. Jane returned to him, and they were married. That is the plot Charlotte Bronte created. It's an interesting twist that Jane became an independent woman with her own inherited fortune. Rochester became disabled and needed a caretaker. Apart from the social taboo of a wealthy man marrying a governess, this is also a reversal of rolls in 19th century social trends. And adele, who was an orphan basically, like Jane, was given the benefit of an excellent home and education. Let's give Charlotte Bronte a hand for that and the ending of roll reversal!

Thank you for your in-depth, informative analysis. I think, when Jane married him in the end, it was on her own terms, she chose him. In the first half, he acts very manipulative and possessive, he tricks her and I think that her not feeling ready to accept her future as Mrs Rochester is maybe foreshadowing the events of the day after? He decided, when they would marry, where they would go after the ceremony, he wanted her to wear clothes and jewels that she didn’t like, wanted to show her off, really, not her style at all.But by the end, he has lost the possessive power, she is not the one marrying „up“, only after his wife died, etc. Also, about the last names not being mentioned after them being married might also say something about, that society didn’t matter to them anymore? Before that it was always Jane, being looked down upon by the Ingrams and the Reeds, but after the marriage, she only mentioned the people they loved, as if they were independent of society, and to those they were Jane and Edward and the surname is only really important in society. And I’m contrast, I remember that, in Pride and Prejudice, Mrs Bennet always calls her husband Mr Bennet, showing that she thinks a lot about them as part of society?

"Was married" refers to the ceremony of marriage, not the state of marriage, so the past tense is appropriate. He is speaking of that act, the act of being married, which we have changed to getting married. I've noticed a change between British English and American English of passive to active, also in such expressions as standing for office and running for office. Rochester sees it as unfair that he should be bound by that one act. I've seen Rochester's naming of Jane discussed before, but in terms of his calling her pixie, fairy, etc. I like the way you tie all these threads together. And when you point out that at the end, in her marriage, Jane remains an I, I think immediately of the fierceness of her insistence on her "I-ness" at the beginning of the book. She remains herself through everything. That indeed is why she couldn't marry St. John Rivers - he was demanding complete suppression of her self. On the other hand, in the early conversations between Jane and Rochester we see him recognize Jane for who she is. That is why have never agreed with those who lament the ending of the book.

Thank you so much for this excellent video, Dr Cox! “Jane Eyre” has been my friend and No. 1 book for over 30 years, read and re-read at various intervals ranging from every couple of months to once a year, and every reading brought new insights. I just never tire of the whole thing. Your today’s video has made me think of yet another facet of the book, which I find fascinating. You have made my day:)

This is such a rich analysis of an important component of this superb novel! Thank you very much!

i did my thesis on individuality in the novels of Charlotte Bronte, featuring Jane Eyre mainly. This was fascinating, and listening took me back forty years researching before the internet!

I enjoyed this video. Definitely a coping mechanism to use names as Rochester does. I also second the North & South suggestion! I love that story and there is a lot about class, technology and capitalism in that story.

Thank you for the video! I always found it interesting, that Jane uncle’s name is John Eyre, their names sound very similar - as if John were some sort of masculine part of Jane’s personality, that protects her and gives her strength. He stays invisible throughout the whole novel - we never see him directly acting or saying anything, yet John Eyre has one of the most powerful influences on Jane, he only appears as some kind of shadow - in memories and in letters. Readers know his name so well, because he is always mentioned as John Eyre, while, I can’t remember whether first names of Mr and Mrs Reeds had been mentioned at all. From what I remember, they are always - uncle and aunt Reed or just Reed of Gateshead.

My all time favourite book. I can't do a puzzle without listening to the audio book. Brilliant video. Xxx

So interesting! I love your videos, I feel so much smarter after listening to you, haha. I would love to see a video or two on North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell if you have any insight into that gem.

Thank you so much Dr. Cox not only for your fascinating analysis but also for speaking so clearly and calmly (in may I add your enticing voice ) for this enables me as a Dutch reader to enjoy your lectures and better my English as well as my literary understanding!

Disclaimer: I read the novel once in high school. It's my mother's favorite book and so I grew up watching multiple film and TV adaptations of JE. My favorites are the George C. Scott and Susannah York (1970) and Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke (1983) versions. Having said all that, good grief, I never realized how much of an asshat Mr. Rochester is. I remember his sadistic taunting of Jane through his flirtation with Blanche Ingram but had glossed over his imagined martyrdom and agonies because of poor Bertha. As I was listening to your analysis I was reminded of the Saturday Night Live skit of Gayle King (Leslie Jones) interviewing R. Kelly (Kenan Thompson). Gayle King: Thank you for being here, Robert. R. Kelly: Well, thank you for having me, and please, just call me Victim. Gayle King: I am not gonna do that.

I'm absolutely loving these presentations! I've never read the complete works of Austen, or even many of these classics - mainly because I'm sure I'm missing historical context, and that I'll get lost and confused in the tangle of old fashioned grammar and punctuation. But now I feel like I've got someone I can go to who'll help me 'unpick' the tangles and make perfect, profound sense of it all so that I can appreciate it the way it was intended to be appreciated - not relying on a parade of Hollywood filmmakers' distorted interpretations of the material. I've always felt a hollow satisfaction at watching film adaptations: like fitting a slipper but missing a toe or heel for the trouble.

I like your videos. The more I listen to you analyse these novels, the more interesting I find them.

You could also say that when Mr. Rochester says "I have been married, and the woman to whom I was married lives!" that he is expressing it as something that was done to/inflicted upon him, not only a deliberate expression of the past tense. He doesn't say, "I was married", or "The woman whom I married", which would also be past tense, but would implicate him as an active party. Therefore he distances himself not only in time from what happened but also from any idea that he might have been involved of his own will - "the woman to whom I was married" is the same kind of syntax as "the wall to which I was chained" or "the river into which I was pushed".

Lovely, just lovely. Listening to you takes me back to my university days... so enjoyable! 👍😎

I am so glad you have done a close reading on this, I found it fascinating! I have always thought that the way Rochester names Jane as "Janet," or "my Janet," basically "Jane-ette," is interesting. Just as he dissociates Bertha Mason from himself, very early in their acquaintance he begins to possess Jane's name in a way which broadcasts (I think) his desire to possess her. The sort of antithesis to the way he treats the name of Bertha Mason. Interested to know your thoughts!

How subtle, yet how important a name is. By remaining true to herself throughout the novel, she was able to keep her own sense of self in the end. I think it's a subtle lesson for real life, which I wish I had known when I was young and single.

How lovely to hear you talk about these great works.

Once again, thanks for pointing out these little details I had not noticed; it makes me appreciate this book all the more. It helps me realize why I loved it so; Jane is discovering that she must be herself, she must be simply Jane, in order to be happy with Rochester. She cannot be Mrs. Rochester, the ideal that he has created in his own mind. Mr Rochester wanted to be known truly and deeply as Edward, free from the pretence of Mr. Rochester. In the same way, Jane had to realize that SHE wanted to be known as Jane, not the pretense of Mrs. Rochester, and that she must demand that of people rather than confirming herself to their visions of who and what she should be.

If she has his name, and she’s mad, it affects his entire line. Even if he later married and had children with Jane, those children would be under the cloud of his dead wife’s madness and it may make any child more difficult to marry to their advantage. People were superstitious about mental illness or birth defects being contagious. If your family name is put into question, what is left for you? You’ll be suspect in business dealings because you married a mad woman.

Your unpacking is a revelation as always ❤️ -- may also be worth mentioning how Jean Rhys works with Rochester's naming in Wide Sargasso Sea -- that he insists on referring to her as "Bertha" when she was, in fact, known by her middle name of Antoinette (not to mention how his 'denial' may have extended to his contribution to her madness). A very great pleasure to listen to your commentaries :)

Absolutely love your videos- so informative! And a massive Jane Eyre fan.

I'm so glad you're delving into the Brontes! Really enjoyed this, hoping for some Wuthering Heights content too :D

Is it possible that the identities of Jane and Bertha Mason and paralleled here? Bertha was locked in the attic, was lonely and vengeful and passionate. So was Jane in her childhood (locked in the red room, isolated from her cousins etc), before she was sent to Lowood School which changed her external behaviour and made her docile. Neither Bertha nor Jane actually becomes Mrs Rochester, whether Mr Rochester wants it or not. By Jane's distancing from the name Mrs Rochester, is the author in a way, continuing Bertha's legacy through Jane thereby placing Bertha in a positive/sympathetic light?

I found this very interesting I love Jane eyre and the naming I thought was interesting I never thought about that in that way before.

The 19th century novel was my favorite class in college. Thank you so much for posting these.

Saw the notification, clicked so fast!!! 🙂

I really enjoy your in-depth analysis of some of my favorite books. THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for this video - it was so interesting!! I absolutely love Jane Eyre and have read it multiple times, but I have never really focused on this aspect. It's really fascinating to see it broken down in this way, and how Rochester actively distances himself from his wife in this way.

I discovered your videos just last night. I’m utterly enchanted. Thank you Dr. Cox. I am so glad to have found your descriptions and analyses. It’s fascinating and great. I love it!

I like very much this ideea that Jane Eyre is never called Mrs. Rochester, even when married to Mr.Rochester, and this points out Jane's independent spirit. It seems to me that there is another instance in which Jane proves her independent character. It is when she discovered that Mr. Rochester was married and she refuses to be his mistress, completely dependent on him, but leaves Thornfield to go somewhere else and build a life of her own.

It shows how much importance people place in names, how they hold the identity of the person in their body and show who that person is and conversely how someone can be seen as a nobody or even a non-entity when they aren't allowed or are denied a name.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this wonderful, in-depth analysis of what has to be one of the most enigmatic characters in English literature (and thereby, all the more fascinating, yes?). I have never really cared for Bertha's backstory, as portrayed in "Wide Sargasso Sea," and your explanations here are simply wonderful. Did I say thank you? Cheers.

Thank you for covering one of my favorite novels. I read it for the first time as a teen and pick it up occasionally for a re-read. I get something new from it each time. The pain of Jane when her wedding comes to an abrupt halt gets me every time.

I really like the analyzes for Jane Eyre, thank you so much for doing them! You gave me completely new insights into some scenes, ideas. I read the book early in my life and usually I return to it once a year. I hope you do some more analysis for Jane Eyre! Sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language.

Just found your channel today, and I'm in love! Your analysis and sources are so clear and the pace is perfect! I can't wait to catch up on your backlog!

Looking rather regal, that necklace is gorgeous

Have we considered the impact of colonial ideologies on how Rochester names Bertha? Bertha is a West Indian woman existing in England at the height of the British Empire. Couldn't Rochester's naming of Bertha be reflective of how West Indians and the West Indies were viewed at this point in history? Side note: Jean Rhys' "Wide Sargasso Sea" is a brilliant write back to "Jane Eyre"

Beautiful video and wonderful study Dr Octavia! Your videos are always a pleasure to watch, even when talking about a character that stress me out like Mr Rochester ahah

I read this when I was young and just focused on the story not the intent behind each action or statement from the characters. Thanks for unpicking this as it has given me a whole new perspective on the nuances of the novel. When I first read this I didn’t think much of Mr Rochester (unlike Darcy and Bingley from P&P whom I liked). This treatment of his wife was alarming but I kind of wrote it off as a consequence of her violent dangerous temperament. But now as an adult and watching your analysis I find it inexcusable to distance yourself imprison someone in your house and wash yourself of blame. So Mr Rochester is definitely not a catch anymore.

You're the bomb, I love your videos so much! Even just your hallo at the beginning makes me happy

i love your analysis! thank you so much for all you do.

Rochester seems to call Jane a myriad of names: elf, Janet, even witch. But then again he is quite verbose:+) I also thought of your birth imagery and the name "Bertha" i.e. birth-a. Ironically it was the death of Bertha/Birth-a that gave new possibilities to the marriage of Jane and Edward:+) God bless~

Excellent video. Very interesting, and something I'd previously not noticed. Thank you.

To me, the novel had a strong essence of the erasure or subsuming of a woman through re-naming her and over-writing her identity with the man's family name. I remember the horror I felt once upon seeing a 19th century book written by "Josiah Allen's Wife". There was no mention of this woman's name, either first or last, and the book could have been written by his dog as far as I could fathom. This erasure of woman through negation of her name is ongoing; it's still the law in many places, that a woman adopt her husband's name, and give up her own. More than one historian has pointed out the difficulty of tracing women's lives if they marry - if no records can be found to ascertain her married name, she effectively disappears.

I always had some sympathy for Mr. R because he could have stuck Bertha in one of the 'wonderful' asylums of the era and she would have been dead in months as mad as she was.

I would love to see your comparison between Jane Eyre and The Wide Sargasso Sea. The issue of changing names to control is even more pronounced in that book. Thank you for an interesting and insightful commentary on Jane Eyre!

That was so interesting. Thank you.

I enjoy so much this videos about Jane Eyre. Thank you for making these!

Poor Bertha. I usually don't like other people's sequels to classics, but I did like that "The Wide Sargasso Sea" gave her some character development.

Imagine how it would have gone if Grace Poole had been halfway good at her job? (Likely raising a family on Lake Como, Jane in ignorant bliss.) I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on Wide Sargasso Sea- my head canon will never be the same. 😸

I am very interested in the point you brought up about Rochester and the Byronic hero. Would you be interested in examining that in a video?

Such a good video! I found your channel a few days ago and I'm already roped in, amazing work. Would love some deep dives into The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, read it last year, completely captivated

Random thought. Bertha is from a Spanish island, and Spanish women don't change their name when married. Could that have something to do with it too? He is distancing himself, yes, but since it could be deduced she has a Spanish cultural heritage, maybe not only did he not give her his married name but maybe she didn't want to take it either... Or maybe I am reading too much into this.

Fascinating

What about Jane changing her name after running away? She is accepted by St. John and his sisters as Jane Elliot, but when it is discovered she is Eyre, St. John kind of distances himself a bit I think.

I always called her Bertha Mason too and not 'his wife' or 'Mrs. Rochester'. He/Charlotte has convinced the reader to do the same as him.

I admire your work very much. You are right saying that Jane Eyre remains Jane Eyre with her individuality and is not owned by her Edward even after their marriage to each other but, on the contrary, Mr Rochester is owned by Jane after the marriage. He becames Edward, is renamed as another man by Jane Eyre, do you agree, dr. Cox?

Concerned about the name - as is the case for the Brontë sisters having to write as Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell - as men.

One of the stages of grief is denial. Rochester never appears to pass this stage of grief with Bertha. It seems that he can only cope with his unhappy marriage by denying her existence. In a Facebook thread, we compared the Rochester/Bertha marriage to Mansfield Park's Rushworth/Maria Bertram marriage. The Rushworth marriage ended in divorce as Maria ran off with another man. Infidelity was grounds for divorce in those days, and Bertha was definitely described as being unfaithful. "Unchaste" and "Messalina" are two such terms applied to her. The Messalina name for Bertha was not addressed in this video, but from what I remember of Messalina in I, Claudius, Messalina's infidelity was pretty flagrant. Insanity was not a cause for divorce in those days, so once Bertha was pronounced insane, Rochester could not get out of the marriage.

Thank you for the great discussion.

It's like the entire book is built around names. I would not bat an eye if a letter or diary entry emerged showing that Charlotte Bronte got the idea for the plot and even many of the characters after an afternoon spent pondering the contrasts between the name Bridewell (reducible to two happy scenes of engagement/marriage in the charade game) and underneath that thin veneer of auspicious name, its gruesome practical connotations of rakery, prostitution, poverty, homeless children, and in close proximity, the horrors of harsh imprisonment and lunacy. I also find it interesting that Miss Mason was procured as Mr Rochester's bride in Jamaica, so far away from England that her name was meaningless to him in a way it would never have been had they shared the same social circle or even country. As briefly (and bitterly) mentioned, Miss Mason was not only a remarkable beauty, but a daughter of three generations' worth of idiots and lunatics. Notably, the text seems to imply she inherited her madness from her mothers' line--in other words, from a string of women who had early in their life been renamed after their husbands, obscuring their afflicted lineage. So there is deceit upon deceit in her marriage to Rochester: living an ocean away, where I assume Rochester had no close, trustworthy connections to give their opinions on her breeding and character; and bearing her fathers' name, not her afflicted mother's; and apparently having appeared perfectly normal until shortly after the wedding (since schizophrenia typically does not show major symptoms until early adulthood). So while I feel exceedingly bad for Bertha Mason, I also understand the fathoms of regret and resentment Rochester has over the matter.

I love your analyses! The only real addition that I’d like to make to your comments is that, while the marriage between Rochester and Bertha is legally legitimate, if you really think about it, Rochester married her under false pretenses. He was never told that insanity ran in her family and there was a chance she could inherit it. He also was fed a blatant lie that her mother was dead. He gave uninformed consent to the marriage, which is not true consent. He never signed up for the task of taking care of a dangerously insane woman. He was not prepared in any way to be confronted with an abusive, murderous wife. So it’s very understandable that he would mentally distance himself from her and create the narrative in his head that she is not truly his wife.

Thank you, this was fascinating. I'm no scholar, but I'd like to ask this: In the question of whether Jane Eyre is a feminist novel, does not the naming prove that in spades? What more mad act can a woman do but to remain herself, claim her identity? Even Bertha's name screams feminism... and in the history of mental health institutionalization, a woman keeping her name was grounds for that diagnosis. Yes, Rochester refuses to name Bertha Mrs Rochester. What unspeakable violence against a man: to refuse his name. Jane, when she leaves, takes on a new name, even if by losing her memory for a time, and she keeps it. When she is renamed Eyre (by St John), she rejects his name (marriage), and returns to Thornfield (and yes, the man named Rochester). I posit that, even in the 19th C, Bronte was using the retention of a woman's name as both madness and self-actualization? Does a woman need to go through one (an "un-naming") to arrive at the other?

Would you do more on Jane eyre ever? I’m studying this text for my alevel and I find your videos very useful and entertaining :)

Thank you for these videos, they are insightful and edifying. I am interested in the veiled references to Bertha being "unchasted", etc. and the Rochester familiy's involvement in the marriage of Bertha and Edward. It occurs to me that Edward might have been married off to his brother's former lover (a bit like Robin being married to "Moll" in Moll Flanders). This would presumably have got Edward's brother out of a fix and have saved the Masons' reputation in Jamaica. By this reasoning, Bertha's crime would have been to have participated in the hoodwinking of Edward. Can you comment on this hypothesis, please?

I love your videos, thank you. What I have never understood about the book is the ending. Of all the options Bronte had, why choose to end on St John and death?

Excellent. Now I would like to ask for some explanation on the Wuthering Heights. It has always puzzled me, on so many layers.

Mr. Rochester could have thrown Bertha overboard on the trip back to England; he did not. He could have shoved her into Bedlam; he did not. Rochester has his flaws but he is not a base character and did what he thought best for the wife that was forced upon him. The Brontes were my special subject for my degree many years ago and I like Edward Rochester.

This was so interesting! I haven't read the book in a while, but I noticed in one of your screenshot that Rochester is referring to Bertha's 'crimes'. Do we ever specifically hear what those 'crimes' are?

Grippingly insightful. Thank you.

I often wondered if the sisters were writing for each other when it came to the need to conceal names because of the danger of exposure (Tenant of Wildfell Hall) or when they considered the financial and social benefits of ditching a given name (Catherine trying out her new signature(s)! The fact that they assumed the male names of Currer, Ellis and Acton can't have been that much of a leap, as only one generation before, their father had been a not so proud member of the Prunty family. But I'm off topic. I LOVED this analysis and I do remember reading it for the first time and wondering why Rochester was so name obsessed - that and his promise that he would ' myself put the diamond chain round your neck', which given his first wife's family history was the flaggiest of flags.