Does it seem accurate to suggest that these advertisements are looking for "slaves"? How would people in 1847 have interpreted that language? What do you make of the reference to Turkey (one that came up in the first reading from Jane Eyre)? How might we perceive Becky Sharp and Miss Temple (or the other teachers at Lowood School) responding to these advertisements? What about Jane herself, toward the end of the reading? How might we read the language in this sketch from Punch against the language of slavery used in Bronte's novel? Are they the same? Different? (April 17, 1847)
I have mixed feelings about this article. When I first read through it, I didn’t feel that the advertisements correlated with trying to attract “slaves.” My first thoughts of slavery do not include the tasks of teaching children how to read, write, do math, or speak another language. Slaves were most definitely used for doing “manual labor.” To ask slaves to perform superior jobs does not seem realistic.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the advertisement is entitled “STATE of the Slave-Market” really caught my attention. The word state suggests a condition that can change. In other words, the title makes me wonder if these advertisements were suggestive of possible positive change in the slave-market and the expectations of slaves. I think people in 1847 would have read this language as an update about what the current climate of slaves was. People were no longer looking for men, women, or children to do the chores, but they were demanding a greater sophistication out of the slaves. The brief introduction to the actual advertisements makes me question what people actually thought the word “slave” meant. Why would the introduction state, “The slave-market is brisk, but quotations are made at very low figures?” Doesn’t being a slave entail more work for less pay inherently?
I think these advertisements would be something that Jane herself would be hesitant to respond to but at the same time willing to if it meant a change. I think a lot of it would depend on where a “slave” is at in their life. For Jane, she wanted to make a change and felt like she could do better than just working at Lowood for the rest of her life. Likewise, taking care of children and teaching them is something within her realm. Jane seems to weigh the good and the bad (p. 104-106) before she accepts. Like her commentary suggests, sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. I’m having a little bit of difficulty comparing the language of slavery used in Punch against Bronte’s novel. I would like to say that they are similar, but I feel like Bronte’s language is more subtle and is rooted in descriptions of appearance rather than qualities. I think this question is something I will strive to pay a little more attention to while reading.
When Jane loses Miss Temple, she loses her purpose. In her despair, Jane cries out “grant me at least a new servitude!” and she turns to the profession of governess (Bronte 102). I believe Bronte’s language is pretty straight forward as far as her belief on slavery: “Anyone may serve” (Bronte 102). Slavery/servitude is still possible despite the abolishment of slavery, and it is something that people of a bad lot in life can turn to. Slavery seems to be the last resort of the poor or the socially immobile, and so it seems that people who resort to “servitude” are pushed by society into it. As “State of the Slave-Market” notes the slaves during the publication of the article “are the slaves of circumstances” suggesting that it is much out of the slave’s control. I agree Sar. The duties of the “slave” are much different than the American perception of those duties; however, the outcome is much the same. This is highlighted most by the second advertisement that exchanges living space for services and offers no salary at all.
ReplyDeleteFrom Adam:
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that this article is published by a man, William Bradbury, and yet it seems to identify with a feminist cause, especially at the end of the article, with the inclusive pronoun, “We wish we could see a better feeling prevailing in the slave market.” The listing for a male tutor implies that music, which forms the basis of a useful, good, Female, English education, is merely an “additional recommendation” in an actual schoolhouse. Of course, the satire in the article seems to shine through at the end of the article, when the author comments that all that a man may teach is students is “dull”, and “not looking up”. In fact, I am not so sure that this article is about class—that only poor women must sell themselves as governesses (though most times, we see governesses are orphans in popular fiction) as bold as the term “Slave-Market” is for the title of an 1847 article, when the issue was heated in England. The truth of the matter is that upper-class girls, the wards of governesses, would receive a somewhat stagnate education, and so the gender hierarchy is more at stake than the socioeconomic hierarchy that exists among women—the entire female sex is subservient to men.
This distinction is apparent once Jane moves in to Thornfield. In her discussion with Mrs. Fairfax, it is revealed that there is a pecking order even among the hired help. Mrs. Fairfax does not consider herself a servant; with them she “cannot converse on terms of equality”, in the way she can with Jane (and so a governess is no slave). In fact, Jane is paid much higher than these young women, at 30 pounds per year. Yet she has had no interaction with men, and Mr. Rochester uses this fact to his advantage. Though he claims “[he] does not wish to treat [Jane] like an inferior” in status, he first asks her if she can play and if she can draw—elements of a Female education in the article—and will not believe she could be so talented without male assistance. He is also the first to extend the motif of birds present in Jane’s childhood to the metaphor of Jane as a caged bird. As a result of her schooling, Jane is bound; she is subordinate because of her sex.