Rochester’s insane wife. Throughout the novel, Bronte leads the reader to attribute the attacks to a vampire of some sort, when in actuality, there exists a logical explanation. Regardless, when Jane first encounters Bertha, she cannot discern, “what it was, whether beast or human being… it groveled seemingly, on all fours; it snatched and growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing, and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face (316).” Notice how Jane continuously refers to Bertha as an “it,” even though Jane was already informed in advance the creature was Rochester’s wife. Instead of fully rationalizing Bertha’s actions, Bronte prominently blurs the line between human and animal when describing Bertha. As a result, she maintains some element of the supernatural, without leaving the attacks unexplained. Though improbable, Bertha’s derangement is hardly beyond the
Rochester’s insane wife. Throughout the novel, Bronte leads the reader to attribute the attacks to a vampire of some sort, when in actuality, there exists a logical explanation. Regardless, when Jane first encounters Bertha, she cannot discern, “what it was, whether beast or human being… it groveled seemingly, on all fours; it snatched and growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing, and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face (316).” Notice how Jane continuously refers to Bertha as an “it,” even though Jane was already informed in advance the creature was Rochester’s wife. Instead of fully rationalizing Bertha’s actions, Bronte prominently blurs the line between human and animal when describing Bertha. As a result, she maintains some element of the supernatural, without leaving the attacks unexplained. Though improbable, Bertha’s derangement is hardly beyond the