A beautiful but most unequal friendship. "The sort of details you fully relish--" How that phrase must have rankled! You can hear the pa.s.sionate protest: "Those details are not what I relish in the least. Putting me off with your Woolers and your Allb.u.t.ts! If only you had told me about _Jane Eyre_!" For it turned out that all the time Mary Taylor had been told. The inference was that Mary Taylor, with her fits of caution, could be trusted.
This silence of Charlotte"s must have been most painful and incomprehensible to the poor Ellen who was Caroline Helstone. She had been the first to divine Charlotte"s secret; for she kept the letters.
She must have felt like some tender and worshipping wife to whom all doors in the house of the beloved are thrown open, except the door of the sanctuary, which is persistently slammed in her charming face. There must have come to her moments of terrible insight when she felt the danger and the mystery of the flaming spirit she had tried to hold. But Charlotte"s friend can wear her half-pathetic immortality with grace.
She could at least say: "She told me things she never told anyone else.
I have hundreds of her letters. And I had her heart."
Nothing so much as this correspondence reveals the appalling solitude in which the Brontes lived. Here is their dearest and most intimate friend, and she is one to whom they can never speak of the thing that interested them most. No doubt "our best plays mean secret plays"; but Charlotte, at any rate, suffered from this secrecy. There was nothing to counteract Miss Nussey"s direful influence on her spiritual youth. "Papa" highly approved of the friendship. He wished it to continue, and it did; and it was the best that Charlotte had. I know few things more pathetic than the cry that Charlotte, at twenty-one, sent out of her solitude (with some verses) to Southey and to Wordsworth. Southey told her that, "Literature cannot be the business of a woman"s life, and it ought not to be. The more she is engaged in her proper duties, the less leisure will she have for it, even as an accomplishment and a recreation. To those duties you have not yet been called, and when you are you will be less eager for celebrity." A sound, respectable, bourgeois opinion so far, but Southey went farther. "Write poetry for its own sake," he said; and he could hardly have said better. Charlotte treasured the letter, and wrote on the cover of it, "Southey"s advice, to be kept for ever."
Wordsworth"s advice, I am sorry to say, provoked her to flippancy.
And that, out of the solitude, was all. Not the ghost, not the shadow of an Influence came to the three sisters. There never was genius that owed so little to influence as theirs.
I know that in Charlotte"s case there is said to have been an Influence.
An Influence without which she would have remained for ever in obscurity, with _Villette_, with _Shirley_, with _Jane Eyre_, with _The Professor_, unborn, unconceived.
Need I say that the Influence is--M. Heger?
"The sojourn in Brussels," says Mr. Clement Shorter, "made Miss Bronte an author," and he is only following Sir Wemyss Reid, who was the first to establish Brussels as the turning-point. Mr. Shorter does not believe in M. Heger as the inspirer of pa.s.sion, but he does believe in him as the inspirer of genius. He thinks it exceedingly probable that had not circ.u.mstances led Charlotte Bronte to spend some time at Brussels not only would "the world never have heard of her", but it would never have heard of her sisters. He is quite certain about Charlotte anyhow; she could not have "arrived" had she not met M. Heger. "She went," he says, "to Brussels full of the crude ambitions, the semi-literary impulses that are so common on the fringe of the writing world. She left Brussels a woman of genuine cultivation, of educated tastes, armed with just the equipment that was to enable her to write the books of which two generations of her countrymen have been justly proud."
This is saying that Charlotte Bronte had no means of expression before she wrote _devoirs_ under M. Heger. True, her genius did not find itself until after she left Brussels, that is to say, not until she was nearly thirty. I have not read any of her works as Lord Charles Albert Florian Wellesley, and I do not imagine they were works of genius. But that only means that Charlotte Bronte"s genius took time. She was one of those novelists who do not write novels before they are nearly thirty. But she could write. Certain fragments of her very earliest work show that from the first she had not only the means, but very considerable mastery of expression. What is more, they reveal in germ the qualities that marked her style in its maturity. Her styles rather, for she had several. There is her absolutely simple style, in which she is perfect; her didactic style, her fantastic style, which are mere temporary aberrations; and her inspired style, in which at her worst she is merely flamboyant and redundant, and at her best no less than perfect. You will find a faint, embryonic foreshadowing of her perfections in the fragments given by Mrs. Gaskell. There is THE HISTORY OF THE YEAR 1829, beginning: "Once Papa lent my sister Maria a book. It was an old geography book; she wrote on its blank leaf, "Papa lent me this book." This book is a hundred and twenty years old; it is at this moment lying before me.
While I write this I am in the kitchen of the Parsonage, Haworth; Tabby, the servant, is washing up the breakfast things, and Anne, my youngest sister (Maria was my eldest), is kneeling on a chair, looking at some cakes, which Tabby has been baking for us." You cannot beat that for pure simplicity of statement. There is another fragment that might have come straight out of _Jane Eyre_. "One night, about the time when the cold sleet and stormy fogs of November are succeeded by the snowstorms and high piercing night-winds of confirmed winter, we were all sitting round the warm, blazing kitchen fire, having just concluded a quarrel with Tabby concerning the propriety of lighting a candle, from which she came off victorious, no candle having been produced." And there is a dream-story that Mr. Clement Shorter gives. She is in the "Mines of Cracone", under the floor of the sea. "But in the midst of all this magnificence I felt an indescribable sense of fear and terror, for the sea raged above us, and by the awful and tumultuous noises of roaring winds and dashing waves, it seemed as if the storm was violent. And now the ma.s.sy pillars groaned beneath the pressure of the ocean, and the glittering arches seemed about to be overwhelmed. When I heard the rushing waters and saw a mighty flood rolling towards me I gave a loud shriek of terror." The dream changes: she is in a desert full of barren rocks and high mountains, where she sees "by the light of his own fiery eyes a royal lion rousing himself from his kingly slumbers. His terrible eye was fixed upon me, and the desert rang, and the rocks echoed with the tremendous roar of fierce delight which he uttered as he sprang towards me." And there is her letter to the editor of one of their _Little Magazines_: "Sir,--It is well known that the Genii have declared that unless they perform certain arduous duties every year, of a mysterious nature, all the worlds in the firmament will be burnt up, and gathered together in one mighty globe, which will roll in solitary splendour through the vast wilderness of s.p.a.ce, inhabited only by the four high princes of the Genii, till time shall be succeeded by Eternity; and the impudence of this is only to be paralleled by another of their a.s.sertions, namely, that by their magic might they can reduce the world to a desert, the purest waters to streams of livid poison, and the clearest lakes to stagnant water, the pestilential vapours of which shall slay all living creatures, except the bloodthirsty beast of the forest, and the ravenous bird of the rock. But that in the midst of this desolation the palace of the chief Genii shall rise sparkling in the wilderness, and the horrible howl of their war-cry shall spread over the land at morning, at noontide, and at night; but that they shall have their annual feast over the bones of the dead, and shall yearly rejoice with the joy of victors. I think, sir, that the horrible wickedness of this needs no remark, and therefore I hasten to subscribe myself, etc."
Puerile, if you like, and puerile all the stuff that Charlotte Bronte wrote before eighteen-forty-six; but her style at thirteen, in its very rhythms and cadences, is the unmistakable embryo of her style at thirty; and M. Heger no more cured her of its faults that he could teach her its splendours. Something that was not Brussels made Miss Bronte a prodigious author at thirteen. The mere ma.s.s of her _Juvenilia_ testifies to a most ungovernable bent. Read the list of works, appalling in their length, which this child produced in a period of fifteen months; consider that she produced nothing but melancholy letters during her "sojourn in Brussels"; and compare M. Heger"s academic precepts with her practice, with the wild sweep and exuberance of her style when she has shaken him off, and her genius gets possession of her.
I know there is a gulf fixed between Currer Bell and Charles Townsend, who succeeded Lord Charles Albert Florian Wellesley and the Marquis of Douro, about eighteen-thirty-eight; but it is bridged by the later _Poems_ which show Charlotte"s genius struggling through a wrong medium to the right goal. She does not know--after the sojourn in Brussels she does not yet know--that her right medium is prose. She knew no more than she knew in November, eighteen-forty-one, when, on the eve of her flight from Haworth, she writes: "The plain fact is, I was not, I am not now, certain of my destiny." It was not until two years after she had returned to Haworth that she received her certainty. For posterity, overpowered by the labour of the Bronte specialists, it may seem as if Charlotte Bronte"s genius owed everything to her flight from Haworth. In reality her flight merely coincided with the inevitable shooting of its wings; and the specialists have mistaken coincidence for destiny.
Heaven only knows what would have happened to her genius if, blind to her destiny, she had remained in Brussels. For, once there, its wing-feathers left off growing. Its way was blocked by every conceivable hostile and obstructive thing. Madame Heger was hostile, and Monsieur, I think, purely obstructive. Emily saw through him, and denounced his method as fatal to all originality. Charlotte, to be sure, called him "my dear master, the only master that I ever had", but if that was not her "absurd charity", it was only her Brontesque way. There was no sense in which he was her master. He taught her French; to the very last the habit of using "a few French words" was the King Charles"s head in her ma.n.u.scripts; and the French he taught her did her harm. The restraint he could and would have taught her she never learnt until her genius had had, in defiance and in spite of him, its full fling.
And what a fling! It is the way of genius to look after itself. In spite of obstacles, Charlotte Bronte"s took hold of every man and woman that crossed and barred its path, and ultimately it avenged itself on Monsieur and on Madame Heger. Those two were made for peaceful, honourable conjugal obscurity, but it was their luck to harbour a half-fledged and obstructed genius in their Pensionnat, a genius thirsting for experience; and somehow, between them, they contrived to make it suffer. That was their tragedy. Monsieur"s case is pitiful; for he was kind and well-meaning, and he was fond of Charlotte; and yet, because of Charlotte, there is no peace for him in the place where he has gone. Her genius has done with him, but her ghost, like some malign and awful destiny, pursues him. No sooner does he sink back quiet in his grave than somebody unearths him. Why cannot he be allowed to rest, once for all, in his amiable unimportance? He became, poor man, important only by the use that Charlotte"s genius made of him. It seized him as it would have seized on any other interesting material that came its way.
Without him we might have had another Rochester, and we should not have had any Paul Emanuel, which would have been a pity; that is all.
There is hardly any hope that Bronte specialists will accept this view.
For them the sojourn in Brussels will still stand as the turning-point in Charlotte Bronte"s career. Yet for her, long afterwards, Brussels must have stood as the danger threatening it. She would have said, I think, that her sojourn in Haworth was the turning-point. It was destiny that turned Emily back to Haworth from the destruction that waited for her at Brussels, so that she conceived and brought forth _Wuthering Heights_; her own destiny that she secretly foreknew, consoling and beneficent. And, no doubt, it was destiny of a sort, unforeknown, deceitful, apparently malignant, that sent Charlotte back again to Brussels after her aunt"s death. It wrung from her her greatest book, _Villette_. But Haworth, I think, would have wrung from her another and perhaps a greater.
For the first-fruits of the sojourn in Brussels was neither _Villette_ nor _Jane Eyre_, but _The Professor_. And _The Professor_ has none of the qualities of _Jane Eyre_ or of _Villette_; it has none of the qualities of Charlotte"s later work at all; above all, none of that master quality which M. Heger is supposed to have specially evoked.
Charlotte, indeed, could not well have written a book more destructive to the legend of the upheaval, the tragic pa.s.sion, the furnace of temptation and the flight. Nothing could be less like a furnace than the atmosphere of _The Professor_. From the first page to the last there is not one pulse, not one breath of pa.s.sion in it. The bloodless thing comes coldly, slowly tentatively, from the birth. It is almost as frigid as a _devoir_ written under M. Heger"s eye. The theorists, I notice, are careful not to draw attention to _The Professor_; and they are wise, for attention drawn to _The Professor_ makes sad work of their theory.
Remember, on the theory, Charlotte Bronte has received her great awakening, her great enlightenment; she is primed with pa.s.sion; the whole wonderful material of _Villette_ is in her hand; she has before her her unique opportunity. You ought, on the theory, to see her hastening to it, a pa.s.sionate woman, pouring out her own one and supreme experience, and, with the brand of Brussels on her, never afterwards really doing anything else. Whereas the first thing the impa.s.sioned Charlotte does (after a year of uninspired and ineffectual poetizing) is to sit down and write _The Professor_; a book, remarkable not by any means for its emotion, but for its cold and dispa.s.sionate observation.
Charlotte eliminates herself, and is Crimsworth in order that she may observe Frances Henri the more dispa.s.sionately. She is inspired solely by the a.n.a.lytic spirit, and either cannot, or will not, let herself go.
But she does what she meant to do. She had it in mind to write, not a great work of imagination, but a grey and sober book, and a grey and sober book is what she writes. A book concerned only with things and people she has seen and known; a book, therefore, from which pa.s.sion and the poetry that pa.s.sion is must be rigidly excluded, as belonging to the region of things not, strictly speaking, known. It is as if she had written _The Professor_ in rivalry with her sister Anne, both of them austerely determined to put aside all imagination and deal with experience and experience alone. Thus you obtain sincerity, you obtain truth. And with nothing but experience before her, she writes a book that has no pa.s.sion in it, a book almost as bloodless and as gentle as her sister Anne"s.
Let us not disparage _The Professor_. Charlotte herself did not disparage it. In her Preface she refused to solicit "indulgence for it on the plea of a first attempt. A first attempt," she says, "it certainly was not, as the pen which wrote it had been previously worn in a practice of some years." In that Preface she shows plainly that at the very outset of her career she had no sterner critic than herself; that she was aware of her sins and her temptations, and of the dangers that lurked for her in her imaginative style. "In many a crude effort, destroyed almost as soon as composed, I had got over any such taste as I might have had for ornamented and decorated composition, and come to prefer what was plain and homely." Observe, it is not to the lessons of the "master", but to the creation and destruction that went on at Haworth that she attributes this purgation. She is not aware of the extent to which she can trust her genius, of what will happen when she has fairly let herself go. She is working on a method that rules her choice of subject. "I said to myself that my hero should work his way through life, as I had seen real, living men work theirs--that he should never get a shilling that he had not earned--that no sudden turns should lift him in a moment to wealth and high station; that whatever small competency he might gain should be won by the sweat of his brow; that before he could find so much as an arbour to sit down in, he should master at least half the ascent of the Hill Difficulty; that he should not marry even a beautiful girl or a lady of rank."
There was no fine madness in that method; but its very soundness and sanity show the admirable spirit in which Charlotte Bronte approached her art. She was to return to the method of _The Professor_ again and yet again, when she suspected herself of having given imagination too loose a rein. The remarkable thing was that she should have begun with it.
And in some respects _The Professor_ is more finished, better constructed than any of her later books. There is virtue in its extreme sobriety. Nothing could be more delicate and firm than the drawing of Frances Henri; nothing in its grey style more admirable than the scene where Crimsworth, having found Frances in the cemetery, takes her to her home in the Rue Notre Dame aux Neiges.
"Stepping over a little mat of green wool, I found myself in a small room with a painted floor and a square of green carpet in the middle; the articles of furniture were few, but all bright and exquisitely clean--order reigned through its narrow limits--such order as it suited my punctilious soul to behold.... Poor the place might be; poor truly it was, but its neatness was better than elegance, and had but a bright little fire shone on that clean hearth, I should have deemed it more attractive than a palace. No fire was there, however, and no fuel laid ready to light; the lace-mender was unable to allow herself that indulgence.... Frances went into an inner room to take off her bonnet, and she came out a model of frugal neatness, with her well-fitting black stuff dress, so accurately defining her elegant bust and taper waist, with her spotless white collar turned back from a fair and shapely neck, with her plenteous brown hair arranged in smooth bands on her temples and in a large Grecian plait behind: ornaments she had none--neither brooch, ring, nor ribbon; she did well enough without them--perfection of fit, proportion of form, grace of carriage, agreeably supplied their place." Frances lights a fire, having fetched wood and coal in a basket.
""It is her whole stock, and she will exhaust it out of hospitality,"
thought I.
""What are you going to do?" I asked: "not surely to light a fire this hot evening? I shall be smothered."
""Indeed, Monsieur, I feel it very chilly since the rain began; besides, I must boil the water for my tea, for I take tea on Sundays; you will be obliged to bear the heat.""
And Frances makes the tea, and sets the table, and brings out her pistolets, and offers them to Monsieur, and it is all very simple and idyllic. So is the scene where Crimsworth, without our knowing exactly how he does it, declares himself to Frances. The dialogue is half in French, and does not lend itself to quotation, but it compares very favourably with the more daring comedy of courtship in _Jane Eyre_.
Frances is delicious in her very solidity, her absence of abandonment.
She refuses flatly to give up her teaching at Crimsworth"s desire, Crimsworth, who will have six thousand francs a year.
""How rich you are, Monsieur!" And then she stirred uneasily in my arms.
"Three thousand francs!" she murmured, "while I get only twelve hundred!" She went on faster. "However, it must be so for the present; and, Monsieur, were you not saying something about my giving up my place? Oh no! I shall hold it fast"; and her little fingers emphatically tightened on mine.
""Think of marrying you to be kept by you, Monsieur! I could not do it; and how dull my days would be! You would be away teaching in close, noisy schoolrooms, from morning till evening, and I should be lingering at home, unemployed and solitary. I should get depressed and sullen, and you would soon tire of me."
""Frances, you could yet read and study--two things you like so well."
""Monsieur, I could not; I like contemplative life, but I like an active better; I must act in some way, and act with you. I have taken notice, Monsieur, that people who are only in each other"s company for amus.e.m.e.nt, never really like each other so well, or esteem each other so highly, as those who work together, and perhaps suffer together!""
To which Crimsworth replies, "You speak G.o.d"s truth, and you shall have your own way, for it is the best way."
There is far more common sense than pa.s.sion in the solid little Frances and her apathetic lover. It is Frances Henri"s situation, not her character, that recalls so irresistibly Lucy Snowe. Frances has neither Lucy"s temperament, nor Lucy"s terrible capacity for suffering. She suffers through her circ.u.mstances, not through her temperament. The motives handled in _The Professor_ belong to the outer rather than the inner world; the pressure of circ.u.mstance, bereavement, poverty, the influences of alien and unloved surroundings, these are the springs that determine the drama of Frances and of Crimsworth. Charlotte is displaying a deliberate interest in the outer world and the material event. She does not yet know that it is in the inner world that her great conquest and dominion is to be. The people in this first novel are of the same family as the people in _Jane Eyre_, in _Shirley_, in _Villette_. Crimsworth is almost reproduced in Louis Moore. Yorke Hunsden is the unmistakable father of Mr. Yorke and Rochester; Frances, a pale and pa.s.sionless sister of Jane Eyre, and a first cousin of Lucy.
Yet, in spite of these relationships, _The Professor_ stands alone. In spite of its striking resemblance to _Villette_ there is no real, no spiritual affinity. And the great gulf remains fixed between _The Professor_ and _Jane Eyre_.
This difference lies deeper than technique. It is a difference of vision, of sensation. The strange greyness of _The Professor_, its stillness, is not due altogether to Charlotte"s deliberate intention. It is the stillness, the greyness of imperfect hearing, of imperfect seeing. I know it has one fine piece of word-painting, but not one that can stand among Charlotte Bronte"s masterpieces in this kind.
Here it is. "Already the pavement was drying; a balmy and fresh breeze stirred the air, purified by lightning; I left the west behind me, where spread a sky like opal, azure inmingled with crimson; the enlarged sun, glorious in Tyrian dyes, dipped his brim already; stepping, as I was, eastward, I faced a vast bank of clouds, but also I had before me the arch of an even rainbow; a perfect rainbow--high, wide, vivid. I looked long; my eye drank in the scene, and I suppose my brain must have absorbed it; for that night, after lying awake in pleasant fever a long time, watching the silent sheet-lightning, which still played among the retreating clouds, and flashed silvery over the stars, I at last fell asleep; and then in a dream was reproduced the setting sun, the bank of clouds, the mighty rainbow. I stood, methought, on a terrace; I leaned over a parapeted wall; there was s.p.a.ce below me, depth I could not fathom, but hearing an endless splash of waves, I believed it to be the sea; sea spread to the horizon; sea of changeful green and intense blue; all was soft in the distance; all vapour-veiled. A spark of gold glistened on the line between water and air, floated up, appeared, enlarged, changed; the object hung midway between heaven and earth, under the arch of the rainbow; the soft but dark clouds diffused behind.
It hovered as on wings; pearly, fleecy, gleaming air streamed like raiment round it; light, tinted with carnation, coloured what seemed face and limbs; a large star shone with still l.u.s.tre on an angel"s forehead--" But the angel ruins it.
And this is all, and it leaves the dreariness more dreary. In _The Professor_ you wander through a world where there is no sound, no colour, no vibration; a world m.u.f.fled and veiled in the stillness and the greyness of the hour before dawn. It is the work of a woman who is not perfectly alive. So far from having had her great awakening, Charlotte is only half awake. Her intellect is alert enough and avid, faithful and subservient to the fact. It is her nerves and senses that are asleep. Her soul is absent from her senses.
But in _Jane Eyre_, she is not only awakened, but awake as she has never been awake before, with all her virgin senses exquisitely alive, every nerve changed to intense vibration. Sometimes she is perniciously awake; she is doing appalling things, things unjustifiable, preposterous; things that would have meant perdition to any other writer; she sees with wild, erroneous eyes; but the point is that she sees, that she keeps moving, that from the first page to the last she is never once asleep. To come to _Jane Eyre_ after _The Professor_ is to pa.s.s into another world of feeling and of vision.
It is not the difference between reality and unreality. _The Professor_ is real enough, more real in some minor points--dialogue, for instance--than _Jane Eyre_. The difference is that _The Professor_ is a transcript of reality, a very delicate and faithful transcript, and _Jane Eyre_ is reality itself, pressed on the senses. The pressure is so direct and so tremendous, that it lasts through those moments when the writer"s grip has failed.
For there are moments, long moments of perfectly awful failure in _Jane Eyre_. There are phrases that make you writhe, such as "the etymology of the mansion"s designation", and the shocking persistency with which Charlotte Bronte "indites", "peruses", and "retains". There are whole scenes that outrage probability. Such are the scenes, or parts of scenes, between Jane and Rochester during the comedy of his courtship.
The great orchard scene does not ring entirely true. For pages and pages it falters between pa.s.sion and melodrama; between rhetoric and the _cri de coeur_. Jane in the very thick of her emotion can say, "I have talked, face to face, with what I reverence, with what I delight in--with an original, a vigorous, an expanded mind. I have known you, Mr. Rochester, and it strikes me with terror and anguish to feel I absolutely must be torn from you for ever. I see the necessity for departure; and it is like looking on the necessity of death." And the comedy is worse. Jane elaborates too much in those delicious things she says to Rochester. Rochester himself provokes the parodist. (Such manners as Rochester"s were unknown in mid-Victorian literature.)
"He continued to send for me punctually the moment the clock struck seven; though when I appeared before him now, he had no such honeyed terms as "love" and "darling" on his lips: the best words at my disposal were "provoking", "malicious elf," "sprite", "changeling", etc. For caresses, too, I now got grimaces; for a pressure of the hand, a pinch on the arm; for a kiss on the cheek, a severe tweak of the ear. It was all right: at present I decidedly preferred these fierce favours to anything more tender."
Yet there is comedy, pure comedy in those scenes, though never sustained, and never wrought to the inevitable dramatic climax. Jane is delightful when she asks Rochester whether the frown on his forehead will be his "married look", and when she tells him to make a dressing-gown for himself out of the pearl-grey silk, "and an infinite series of waistcoats out of the black satin". _The Quarterly_ was much too hard on the earlier _cadeau_ scene, with Rochester and Jane and Adele, which is admirable in its suggestion of Jane"s shyness and precision.
_""N"est-ce pas, Monsieur, qu"il y a un cadeau pour Mademoiselle Eyre, dans votre pet.i.t coffre?""_
""Who talks of _cadeaux_?" said he gruffly; "did you expect a present, Miss Eyre? Are you fond of presents?" and he searched my face with eyes that I saw were dark, irate, and piercing.