After Reading Shirley by Charlotte Bronte
Reading Charlotte Bronte’s book immediately after Jane Austen’s renders me in a shocking and disturbing state. In contrast with Austen’s peaceful small town setting, Bronte’s work Shirley set in a violent age: the industrializing England of the Napoleonic wars and Luddite revolts of 1811-1812. Austen’s language is simple, witty and delightful, while Bronte uses gloomier tone to narrator her story. It has some reason though, since when writing Shirley, Bronte suffered a lot: her brother Branwell and sister Emily died, ere long Anne her another sister died as well.
Shirley, the title is named after one of the 2 female protagonists in the novel, yet not appeared in the text until 1/3 of the novel. The male protagonist is Robert Moore, who is an ambitious, stubborn and modernizing mill-owner. He loves his niece Caroline (the other female protagonist in this novel) and Caroline loves him too. However, in order to pursue business career, Robert Moore still keeps a distance with Caroline, and later tries to propose to Shirley, the heiress with a large sum of estate. The story ends happily, finally the war ended, Robert Moore’s financial burden is relieved and gets prosperous overnight; Robert Moore marries Caroline, Shirley marries Louis Moore(brother of Robert Moore, and once tutor of Shirley ). Some critics thinks this happy ending is a flaw to the theme of this novel, which I agree, although however, I take it as a console for the author herself—if her 2 sisters can not fulfill their life on this earth, let them live happily hereafter in the novel; for maybe I have forgotten to mention that the prototype of Shirley is Emily, her somewhat rebellious sister, and part of Caroline is taken from Anne.
When giving the first glimpse to Shirley, one will feel startled by its modernist addressing of reader. In the beginning of the story, after a brief introduction of the time of this novel, the author proceeds with “If you think, from this preclude, that anything like a romance is preparing for you, reader, you never were more mistaken”. The author directly tells you that you the reader are reading her novel. This technique may prevail in 20th century novels, but in 19th century, seldom writer will adopt such kind of technique, which delineates a gap between the story and the reader, reminding now and then you are a reader, “it is time, reader, that you should have some idea of the appearance of this host: I must endeavor to sketch him as he sits at table.”. Bronte even adopts this technique in the title of one chapter: “which the genteel reader is recommended to skip, low persons being here introduced”. The winding up chapter begins with “Yes, reader, we must settle accounts now.” In this sense, I think Bronte is creative.
In Shirley, Bronte presents us two vivid pictures of state quo: one is the ugly and degrading picture of curates and priests at that time; the other is the unequal status between men and women.
First I will discuss about the first picture based on the evidence from Shirley.
Mr Helstone, uncle of Caroline, is a respectful priest in Briarfield. In other people’s mind, Mr Helstone is venerable, responsible, and reliable. But who can imagine that to Caroline, he is a totally different person when at home, without guests. He is stern and taciturn. In fact, he is so cold and indifferent to his family that his wife died young in sadness. In this way, we can see Mr Helstone is a hypocrite. I can readily give another example of this. When Mr Helstone, for the first time, visited Shirley with Caroline, he is so cool and mean to a lady in Shirley’s house (who turned out to be Mrs Pryor: Shirley’s governess and Caroline’s mother), Mr Helstone “looking especially at the strange lady with his sarcastic, keen eye”, “the impracticable Mr. Helstone presently found himself somewhat” to whatever Mrs. Pryor said, “he affected not to hear distinctly, and she (Mrs. Pryor was obliged to go over each elaborately constructed nothing twice)”, this kind of behavior shall never come from a priest who serves God, yet this is the truth. However, when Shirley turned up, and introduced Mrs. Pryor as her governess and friend, and praised her much, Mr. Helstone reversed his attitude, “The rector immediately bowed very low to Mrs Pryor and expressed himself obliged to her”. This sharp contrast put forward a ludicrous and doubtful rector before us.
Now let us look out some trivial curates appearing in the very beginning of the novel and who appear once in a while in the middle and end part. As a start, Bronte offers us a noisy picture of three curates eating and drinking in a villager’s house. They behaved wild and as comfortable as if in their own house, sometime blaming the beef being “tough”, sometime cursing each other. I wonder as if what presents me are rogues instead of respectable curates. Later on, when the author tells something about Mr Ainley, we know that these curators often had dinner in her house too. I wonder are they freeloaders to their poor parishioners? Do the people like these curates?“I’m stalled o’t’ curates, and so is t’ wife: they’ve no manners; they talk to poor folk fair as if they thought they were beneath them.”
Then how about marriage to these curates? They are so proud of their station, which kind of girls will they regard as worthy? From what Malone (one of the curates) commented we can see a light, “two beggarly fools agreeing to unite their indigence by some fantastic tie of feeling—humbug!” We can we get from it? They will take advantage of their station to marry someone rich. When Shirley appeared and began to live in Briarfield, Peter(a curate) who used to chase after Caroline for a hope she will someday be likely to inherit 5000l turned his attention to the newly arrived rich girl Shirley. Donne put on arrogance and treated himself as if he were somebody and so self-assertive that finally Shirley couldn’t bear him and dispel him out of her house.
Of course, Bronte doesn’t fail to provide another honorable Priest, Mr Hall, who is kind-hearted, considerate and modest.
Towards the downgrading priest system, Bronte although hates it, yet she knows it is indispensable to England, so she wishes for the religious reformation. “Let England’s priests have their due: they are a faulty set in some respects, being only of common flesh and blood, like us all; but the land would be badly off without them: Britain would miss her church, if that church fell. God save it! God also reform it! ”
The other picture Bronte presents is what makes her become a feminist writer. Most men characters in this novel have low opinion of women, Mr. Helstone, Joe Scott and etc. Let me summarize from their opinions what kind of woman was expected at that time.
1, she shall be modest, with no demand for respect;
2, she shall be simple, happy at flattery;
3, she shall be silent and discreet, “because discretion and reserve is a girl’s best wisdom”
4, she shall stay at home to sew and cook all their life long.
5, she shall take her husband’s opinion both in politics and religion.
Caroline, being shy, modest, silent, tender and fragile, is the ideal woman. After she got acquaintance with Shirley, Caroline changed, daring to express herself, for etc, when Joe Scott expressed his opinion about women, Caroline refuted. However, when she pined for love, she despaired; she wanted something to lead her out, she wanted to be a governess, yet no one support her. There was no other thing she could do, except stay at home and perform charity sometimes. If not for her mother Mrs. Pryor, Caroline would die young, another victim of the inequality between man and woman.
As for Shirley, she was strong, passionate, compassionate and brave. In one episode, Shirley expressed her defy towards Milton’s Eve, for Shirley, Adam and Eve are equal, both children of God. However, quite paradoxically, Shirley’s marriage value is “any man who wishes to live in decent comfort with me as a husband must be able to control me”. Even the powerful Shirley can’t escape from this “inequality” between man and woman.
Thoughts after Reading Emma
Emma was the fourth of the six books written by Jane Austen. Being a controversial work: some authors and critics saw nothing from it, Charlotte Bronte for instance, after reading Emma, wrote, “she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him with nothing profound. The passions are perfectly unknown to her”; while, some critics regard Emma as the most successful one of all the six novels, Ronald Blythe, for example, states in his introduction to the 1966 Penguin Classics edition of "Emma" that it is "the climax of Jane Austen's genius and the Parthenon of fiction.” Austen herself thus claimed "I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like". Indeed, I read from Emma a girl that is beautiful, quick-witted, filial, helpful, capable, courageous, yet meanwhile so snobbish, vain and manipulative. A flawed protagonist is more realistic and truer than a perfect one, and thus easily arouses readers’ sympathy and endearment.
Emma was born into a rich gentry’s family, to be exact, the richest and most famous family in Hartfield. Even before her sister was married, she was the favorable one both of her governess Miss Taylor (later became Mrs Weston) and his father. Then after, she became the mistress of the Woodhouse. After Miss Taylor married and moved out of Woodhouse, Emma took Harriet Smith (whose parents were unknown) as her intimate friend. Emma tried to arrange a match between Harriet and Mr Elton, first by persuading Harriet turning down Martin’s proposal and then making Harriet believe Mr Elton was in love with her. However it turned out Emma was the target of Mr Elton’s gallantry. Emma regretted deeply and determined not to perform match-making. Nevertheless, another eligible gentleman turned up, Frank Churchill, and Emma, after her passion with Frank receded, fancied Harriet could make a good match with Frank. Emma urged Harriet to love Frank the one who had great disparity with her, while Harriet was actually referring to Mr Knightley. By this incident, Emma realized she was in love with Mr Knightley herself. The story ends with happy ending: Harriet and Martin, Emma and Mr. Knightley.
Emma was, from the start, a kind-hearted and sweet girl. She had good relationship with her governess; Miss Taylor was not only tutor to her, but friend. She was happy for Miss Taylor’s marriage, “Mr. Weston is such a good-humoured, pleasant, excellent man, that he thoroughly deserves a good wife”. As for Harriet, Emma was sincerely fond of her. When Emma first met Harriet, “she was a very pretty girl, and her beauty happened to be of a sort which Emma particularly admired”, and “before the end of the evening, Emma was as much pleased with her manner as her person, and quite determined to continue the acquaintance.” She tried all her effort to elevate Harriet from her low circle of life, although her attempts failed, yet I can’t doubt her good intention with Harriet. When she heard Jane Fairfax was sick, Emma sent notes and gifts to Jane, and even went to visit Jane herself.
Emma was also a filial daughter. She put her father’s concern above everything else. When going to Mr Cole’s ball, she let her father promise not to sit up for her, should she return later.”I am only afraid your sitting up for me.””You must promise me not to sit up” She would not marry Mr. Knightley until her father consented. “she could not bear to see him suffering” “she hesitated- she could not proceed.”
But, we can’t forget Emma’s first and foremost merit, she was clever and quick-witted. Here and there, the book is dotted by Emma’s sagacious opinion towards human being and life: “There are people, who the more you do for them, the less they will do for themselves.” “One would rather have a stranger preferred than one’s very particular friend; with a stranger, it might not recur again, but the misery of having a very particular friend always at hand, to do everything better than one does one’s self.”
If Austen simply depicts all the merits Emma has, then it fails to be an impressive novel. Only with the following restrictions that Emma is full of flesh:
First and foremost, Emma was snobbish. Maybe the word snobbish is a little too strong, but she was too full of class consciousness, which is exemplified by several incidents. First one is she coaxed Harriet to reject Martin’s proposal. Martin was a tenant of Mr. Knightley. In Emma’s opinion, a man from decent family is always gentleman, and a man from low class will never be a gentleman. So she preferred Mr. Elton, the vicar to Martin, the peasant. Second one is Emma originally decided not to go to Mr Coles’ ball, because she regarded herself far superior than Mr Coles, the merchant family, “they [Mr Coles] ought to be taught that it was not for them to arrange the terms on which the superior families would visit them”. Third one is when Mrs Weston suspected the possibility of Mr. Knightley marrying Jane Fairfax (daughter from poor family, though receiving good education elsewhere), Emma strongly deny the possibility, “a very shameful and degrading connection”. This drawback, in fact makes the character of Emma more reliable. For an upper class girl, her social status prevented her from getting rid of this kind of class prejudice.
Emma was vain as well. She delighted at people’s flattery. She took Harriet as good friend, partly because Harriet was humble, simple and dependent. From Harriet, Emma could gain satisfaction. Even when Emma played worse piano than Jane, Harriet kept praising Emma. In the end part of the story, when Frank praised her and Mr Knightley, “Emma was delighted, and only wanted his to go on in the same style”.
To conclude, during my reading course, I was really infuriated by Emma’s self-assurance and stubborn, but after finishing the novel, I began to like Emma. All her demerits only make her more lovable and sweet.
Thoughts after studying Poetics
We studies Poetics by Aristotle for 2 weeks, I guess in 1 or two more weeks it will be finished.
Poetics is not exactly written by Aristotle, but collected by his students of his lectures, so that’s why there are some definition in Poetics was unknown to the public, and thus remain controversial among scholars, such as the word purgation.
I enjoy reading Poetics because the word choice is simple, the logic is rigorous and the argument is convincing. Unlike Plato who expressed his view like torrent, Aristotle was kind of nonchalant, like a pond of deep water.
Poetics mainly discusses about tragedy, and it dabs a little on epic and comedy.
In this reading report, I will summarize Aristotle’s point of view on tragedy, epic and comedy.
Aristotle made a definition for tragedy: Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.
1. Imitation is an important word either in Plato’s work, or in Aristotle’s. Plato thinks poets only imitate the surface of arts, touching upon the lower part of the soul, and contributing no good to the society, therefore, poets should be banished from his republic. However, Aristotle thinks high of imitation and poetry. Aristotle thinks imitation is an instinct of our nature. Man can get pleasure from seeing a likeness, and from contemplating the likeness, man get knowledge. Thus, all human being by nature desires knowledge.
2. Aristotle thinks every tragedy must have 6 parts: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Diction and song constitute the medium of imitation, plot constitutes the manner of imitation, and character, thought, spectacle are the objects of imitation. The order of importance of the 6 parts is: plot, character, thought, diction, song and spectacle.
Plot is the most important and indispensable factor for tragedy: the soul of tragedy. Tragedy is an imitation of an action. In action, man’s characters are revealed. Thus the plot and incidents are the purpose of a tragedy. Plot(action) shall have the following features: ⑴the plot shall have a beginning, a middle and an end. It shall be an organic whole, like a living creature. ⑵the plot shall not be too long nor shall it be too short, it shall be of certain magnitude enough to display the sequence of events. ⑶tragedy shall emphasize on one important representative action of the hero. ⑷the plot shall not be episodic, it can be caused by some cause or by accident. The plot, above all, due to some probable or necessary sequence, will inevitably happen. ⑸ plot should be complex. The change of fortune is accompanied by reversal of situation or by recognition or by both. The change of fortune shall be from good to bad, coming about due to some great error or frailty. ⑹Aristotle gives some suggestion about how to handle the incidents/plots:① the action is done consciously and with knowledge of the persons; ② the deed of horror is done in ignorance, and the tie of kinship or friendship is discovered afterwards. ③to be about to act with of the knowledge of the persons and then not to act. ④when someone is about to do an irreparable deed through ignorance, and makes the discovery before it is done. This one and the one before this one, according to Aristotle is the worst one, not tragic at all, for no disaster follows. ⑤the deed should be perpetrated, and discovery made afterwards.⑥the horrible deed is about to do, when the discovery or recognition is made, this one is the best based on Aristotle.
Character is second. Character is shown by action. So Aristotle didn’t say a lot about it. He gives 4 principles for character: ⑴it must be good, if the purpose is good, the character is good. ⑵propriety, don’t use man’s feature to depict woman ⑶true to life ⑷consistency(about this point, I still have some confusion, which will be pending for Professor He’s explanation)
Aristotle thinks tragedy should use embellished language, like rhythm, harmony or songs to make it artistic.
3, Pity and fear are a pair of words, whose order can never be changed, fear must always follow pity. Pity defined by Aristotle: seeing someone who doesn’t deserve it suffering from destructive or painful disaster; Fear: when people hear or see someone better than “I” am or similar to me suffer from destructive harmful evil, “I” fear I myself or people close to me might suffer in future, thus fear arises. Aristotle doesn’t approve using spectacle to arouse pity and fear, for he thinks it is least artistic.
4, purgation is a controversial concept, for Aristotle failed to provide his definition for it in any of his works. The Greek word of purgation is Katharsis. It is originally a medicine vocabulary. It means to evacuate the harmful superfluous materials which cumulated in people’s body. Pleasure comes from the pity and fear offered by the poet through imitation. Aristotle thinks through purgation people can evacuate the superfluous emotions, thus people’s emotion is adjusted. So unlike Plato, who strongly objects pleasure, thinking it will deal negative effect on people, such make disserve to the society, Aristotle approve pleasure, he thinks the pity and fear conjured by tragedy can regulate and thus change people to the benefit of moral goodness.
5, tragedy is a serious art. Tragedy imitates the higher type of people, the noble people, while comedy imitates the lower type of people.
The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
I finished Benjamin Franklin’s the autobiography during this national holiday. Benjamin Franklin was one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a leading author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist and diplomat.
In the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, he presented us his life track, starting as an apprentice printer to his older brother, to a businessman owning a printing house and a scientist and a statesman. It is a pity that Franklin left his autobiography unfinished, ending with the year 1757, hence many important facts un-recorded, such as the continental Congress and draft of Declaration of Independence.
By reading this book, I got to know more about this founding father, especially in the following 3 aspects:
Firstly, Franklin is a full representative of Protestant morals. The thirteen virtues he developed and thus adhered to are usually quoted as Protestant principles, which are: temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, moderation, cleanliness, tranquilility, chastity and humility. Franklin kept working hard, stick to the habit of reading every day. "He even began to study French, Italian, Spanish and Latin by the age of 33. Franklin also forbade himself to use words that imported a fixed opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly etc, and adopted instead “I conceive, I apprehend” or so thus enable his opinions to be accepted more readily and with less contradict. Although Franklin was mean to himself, pursuing little of material enjoyment, he was very generous in performing charity, denoting money to whatever public activities that were beneficial, such as aiding in founding the first hospital, just name a few.
Secondly, Franklin is the first idol of American Dream. I may fairly that the concept of American Dream later prevailed all of United States stemmed from this founding father. Franklin was born into a poor family with 11 children. He only received 2 years of formal education before he became an apprentice to his brother. With printing skills he gradually mastered, Franklin successfully started his own business and earned enough money for his family. However, if we think Franklin’s achievements were restrained in material success, we are wrong. Franklin participated in a lot of public services, which I will talk about in the 3rd point, and also played an irreplaceable role in political area. The essence of American dream that people that are honest and industrious will succeed thus best exemplified by Benjamin Franklin.
Thirdly, Franklin contributes greatly to American people’s happiness and welfare. There is one saying that American, the country of mere 200-hundred-year history which Franklin took part in establishing leads the world for over 100 years. Of course this is out of my topic since the autobiography doesn’t involve the later part life of Franklin. The printing house Franklin owned was a good assistant to Franklin in proposing his ideas, in censuring the dark side of society, for example, Franklin published a pamphlet “Plain Truth” in order to propose setup of military company for disciplined defense. I think it the rudiment of the democratic modern press and newspapers. Beside it, Franklin also devoted himself to the following deeds: 1,found the Philadelphia library; 2, advocated paper currency; 3, established union fire company of Philadelphia; 4, invented the open or “Franklin ”stove for better warming of the room; 5, proposed a plan for an academy, which develops into the university of Pennsylvania; 6, formed a military company for disciplined defense; 7, aided in founding a hospital; 8, proposed paving the streets of Philadelphia, and more are yet not recorded in his autobiography.
In sum, Benjamin Franklin is a genius, America is lucky to have him. I sometimes wonder what if such person appeared in China, what changes will happen?