English society with its morals and values, pronounces Antoinette as unsuitable to be an ideal ‘English’ wife because according to their morals, a woman who does things excessively is an outcast. According to Laura E. Ciolkowski (1997:339), “Antoinette is deemed unsuited for English domestic bliss not because of any psychological disorder from which she might be suffering but because of the appetites and excesses she so liberally exhibits”. Because Antoinette hands out food, drink and money to her relatives, this is equalled to madness. Rochester himself says of this,

As for the money, which she handed out so careless, not

counting it, not knowing how much she gave, or the

unfamiliar faces appearing and disappearing, though

never without a large meal eaten and a shot of rum, I

poisonous. Of course not.’ (p73)

the threads that hold her to the reality that the world perceives

but there are none here,” and added, “but how can they be

Antoinette says, “Once I made excuses to be near her when she brushed her hair, a soft black cloak to cover me, hide me, keep me safe. But not any longer. Not anymore” (p19). By repeating “not any” and the small change from “longer” to “more” suggests that the second phrase is said by the present Antoinette, thinking back on her loss of a mother, and of feeling “safe”. It also suggests that the thin line between past and present is becoming indistinct. The blurring of this distinction itself suggests a mind that is falling apart and is in a state of disarray. Just like the traditional way of telling a story, being sane depends on “clarity of sequence and distinction”, in Mezei’s terms. To follow conventional rules of narrative becomes the difference between sanity and being mad.

When [she] lies caged in Thornfield Hall’s dark, cold attic,

Some topics in this essay:
Laura Ciolkowski, Thornfield Hall’s, Daniel’s Daniel, Sargasso Sea, Kathy Meizei, Rochester English, According Meizei, Jean Rhys’, concept madness, falling apart, conventional narrative,