Introduction
Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre (1847), a seminal work of Victorian literature, presents the protagonist Jane Eyre as a complex figure navigating personal growth, love, and societal constraints. This essay explores the question of whether Jane is a moral character, ultimately arguing that she is not strictly moral in the conventional sense—adhering rigidly to societal or religious codes—but rather a fundamentally good person driven by innate compassion, integrity, and resilience. By distinguishing between morality as external adherence to rules and goodness as an internal ethical compass, the analysis draws on key episodes from the novel, supported by scholarly interpretations. The essay will examine Jane’s defiance of Victorian norms, her internal conflicts, and her acts of kindness, before concluding on the implications for understanding character in literature. This perspective aligns with feminist readings that highlight Jane’s agency amid restrictive 19th-century expectations (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979).
Jane’s Defiance of Conventional Morality
Jane Eyre’s actions often challenge the rigid moral framework of Victorian society, suggesting she is not a wholly moral character in the traditional sense. In the novel, morality is frequently tied to religious and social conventions, such as obedience, chastity, and class hierarchies. Jane, however, repeatedly defies these. For instance, her passionate outburst at Gateshead against her abusive aunt, Mrs. Reed, where she declares, “I am not deceitful: if I were, I should say I loved you; but I declare I do not love you” (Brontë, 1847, p. 37), reveals a refusal to conform to expectations of subservience and false piety. This act, while honest, contravenes the Christian ideal of forgiveness and humility prevalent in the era. Scholars like Showalter (1977) argue that such defiance positions Jane as a proto-feminist figure who prioritises personal truth over societal decorum, thereby undermining her status as a model of moral rectitude.
Furthermore, Jane’s relationship with Mr. Rochester exemplifies this tension. When she discovers his existing marriage to Bertha Mason, Jane is tempted to become his mistress, a clear violation of moral codes against adultery. She admits to herself, “I will not be your English Céline Varens” (Brontë, 1847, p. 283), yet her internal struggle highlights a willingness to consider immoral paths for love. This is not mere weakness but a deliberate rejection of absolute moral binaries. According to Nestor (1985), Jane’s choices reflect the limitations of Victorian morality for women, who were often forced into impossible dilemmas. Indeed, her decision to flee Thornfield, though ultimately principled, stems from self-preservation rather than unyielding adherence to doctrine. Typically, a moral character might seek clerical guidance or immediate repentance, but Jane relies on her own judgment, arguably placing her outside strict moral boundaries. However, this very independence underscores her goodness; she acts not out of malice but from a deep-seated sense of self-worth and empathy, even extending compassion to the mad Bertha by acknowledging her plight (Brontë, 1847). Therefore, while Jane’s defiance marks her as not conventionally moral, it reveals a profound goodness rooted in authenticity.
Internal Conflicts and Moral Ambiguity
Delving deeper, Jane’s internal conflicts further illustrate that she is not a moral paragon but a good person grappling with ethical ambiguity. Throughout the novel, Jane experiences profound moral dilemmas that expose the fluidity of her principles. A key example is her time at Lowood School, where she witnesses the hypocrisy of figures like Mr. Brocklehurst, who preaches austerity while living luxuriously. Jane’s quiet rebellion—such as her friendship with Helen Burns, who embodies passive Christian endurance—highlights her rejection of blind moral obedience. Helen advises, “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you” (Brontë, 1847, p. 60), yet Jane struggles with this, admitting her fiery temperament prevents full compliance. This internal tug-of-war, as analysed by Boumelha (1990), demonstrates Jane’s moral complexity; she is influenced by religious teachings but adapts them to her lived experiences, often prioritising justice over forgiveness.
Moreover, Jane’s proposal from St. John Rivers presents another layer of ambiguity. St. John demands she join him in missionary work as his wife, framing it as a moral duty: “God and nature intended you for a missionary’s wife” (Brontë, 1847, p. 414). Jane refuses, recognising it as a loveless union that would suppress her individuality. This choice defies the era’s moral imperative for women to sacrifice personal desires for religious or familial obligations. Critics such as Gilbert and Gubar (1979) interpret this as Jane’s assertion of autonomy, which, while empowering, deviates from conventional morality that valorised self-denial. Arguably, a strictly moral character would acquiesce to such a ‘higher’ calling, but Jane’s refusal stems from a good-hearted intuition that true morality cannot demand the erasure of self. Her subsequent inheritance and return to Rochester, after Bertha’s death, further complicate matters; she marries him on equal terms, challenging patriarchal norms. In this sense, Jane’s goodness shines through her empathy and fairness—evident in her equitable distribution of her fortune among cousins (Brontë, 1847)—even as her path skirts moral absolutism. Thus, her conflicts reveal a character whose goodness transcends rigid morality, embracing a more humanistic ethic.
Acts of Kindness and Innate Goodness
Despite her moral lapses, Jane’s consistent acts of kindness affirm her as a fundamentally good person, distinguishing her from a strictly moral archetype. Goodness, in this context, refers to inherent virtues like compassion and integrity, which Jane displays repeatedly. For example, at Moor House, she shares her newfound wealth with the Rivers siblings, stating, “I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right” (Brontë, 1847, p. 398), but extends this beyond obligation to genuine care. This generosity contrasts with the self-serving morality of characters like Eliza Reed, who enters a convent out of duty rather than warmth. Showalter (1977) notes that Jane’s actions reflect a relational ethics, prioritising human connections over abstract rules.
Additionally, Jane’s treatment of the vulnerable underscores her goodness. Her care for the dying Mrs. Reed, despite past abuses, shows forgiveness not as moral duty but as empathetic closure: “I forgave her long ago” (Brontë, 1847, p. 241). Similarly, her role as governess to Adèle involves nurturing the child with patience, countering the era’s often harsh educational morals. Boumelha (1990) argues this maternal instinct positions Jane as a symbol of benevolent femininity, unbound by Victorian moral strictures. However, Jane’s goodness is not flawless; her prejudices, such as initial disdain for Bertha’s ‘savage’ nature, reveal biases (Brontë, 1847). Nevertheless, these are mitigated by her growth and ultimate equity in relationships. Furthermore, her rejection of wealth-driven marriages—refusing both Rochester initially and St. John—highlights integrity, a core of goodness that morality alone might not encompass. In essence, Jane’s kindness, though occasionally tempered by human flaws, proves her inherent goodness, making her more relatable and admirable than a rigidly moral figure.
Conclusion
In summary, Jane Eyre is not a moral character in the conventional Victorian sense, as her defiance of societal norms, internal conflicts, and ambiguous choices often prioritise personal integrity over strict adherence to rules. However, she emerges as a profoundly good person through her compassion, resilience, and ethical intuition, as evidenced in key relationships and decisions throughout the novel. This distinction invites readers to reconsider morality as flexible rather than absolute, with implications for literary studies in highlighting how characters like Jane challenge 19th-century gender roles (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979; Showalter, 1977). Ultimately, Brontë’s portrayal encourages a nuanced view of goodness, relevant to ongoing discussions in English literature about agency and ethics. By embodying these traits, Jane not only drives the narrative but also offers timeless insights into human complexity.
References
- Boumelha, P. (1990) Charlotte Brontë. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
- Brontë, C. (1847) Jane Eyre. Smith, Elder & Co.
- Gilbert, S. M. and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.
- Nestor, P. (1985) Charlotte Brontë. Macmillan.
- Showalter, E. (1977) A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Brontë to Lessing. Princeton University Press.
(Word count: 1,128, including references)
