Patrick Brontë’s request to Elizabeth Gaskell to pen a biography of his daughter, Charlotte Brontë, came with the hopes of subduing the rampant sensational stories that had been circulating since her untimely death at the age of 38, on March 31, 1855. The recollection presented by Gaskell, although regarded as an innovative example of biographical writing, was infamous for gaps in information and dated notions around gender and literary authorship.
Gaskell’s journey of writing ‘The Life of Charlotte Brontë (1857)’ has been an oft-discussed topic in various other studies of Brontë, but merits a stand-alone publication, in the opinion of Graham Watson. Watson charts the course of Gaskell’s intrigue about Brontë, right from initially pondering over the true identity of “Currer Bell”, under which pseudonym Jane Eyre was published, to their four-year association, and eventually Gaskell’s publishing of the biography resulting in scandalous repercussions.
Instead of the common portrayal of the ever-aspiring author seeking approval alongside sisters Emily and Anne, Charlotte is represented as an assured literary dignitary by the time Gaskell met her in 1850. Brontë entered wedlock in June 1854, which was tragically short-lived due to her death during early pregnancy, nine months later.
Watson reveals that the job of “creating” Charlotte Brontë was kick-started by Brontë herself, through recounting stories of her youth without a mother in the Yorkshire parsonage, helmed by her unpredictable father, an ordained minister (and author) from Co Down, as well as a harrowing initial boarding school experience. This representation influenced Gaskell’s overall perspective of Brontë’s life. Furthermore, while Gaskell encountered supporters like Brontë’s childhood friend Mary Taylor who concurred that Brontë’s existence was nothing but “labour and pain”, she was forced to publish a revised third edition following objections raised by those implicated in Brontë’s turmoil.
According to Watson, although Gaskell had a valid reason to believe that Brontë’s lifetime of emotional hardship had made her susceptible to manipulation and exploitation by men around her, a more persistent critique is needed to fortify this theory against widespread criticisms of Gaskell’s portrayal of Brontë as a victim. Watson’s meticulous documentation and evident storytelling prowess notwithstanding, this assertion still needs further substantiation.
Graham Watson’s 1857 biography of Charlotte Brontë, titled “The Invention of Charlotte Brontë”, delves into the dual existence of the writer as an acclaimed authoress and a woman submerged in domestic duties. While Brontë, under the criticism of ‘rudeness’ in her works, Gaskell, another renowned novelist, tactfully presents the evidence of Bronte’s merits as a dutiful private individual.
Brontë’s correspondence with her publisher reveals an intent to display a ‘pleasant womanly touch’ thus dismissing the preconceived opinion of her as a liberated feminist. Gaskell emphasised on the fact that the roles of a ‘woman’ and an ‘authoress’ were distinct, and balancing the two was of the essence, as women were additionally committed to household responsibilities. Moreover, they were expected to use their literary prowess for the benefit of others.
Gaskell, herself a successful novelist and a respected minister’s wife and mother of four, was unsettled by Bronte’s belief in her divine calling to express her emotional and intellectual restlessness through her creations. To Gaskell, the ‘gifted’ Bronte’s misfortune lay not just in her immense obligation to her father, but also in the fact that her potential had not fully bloomed for achieving social responsiblity.
In her biography on Patrick Brontë, Gaskell included various instances of his quirky behaviour, preaching their necessity in comprehending the life of his daughter. She however alluded only briefly to his life, majorly centring on his humble start in Ireland as a farmer’s child, paving his way to Cambridge University in 1802. Drawing inspiration from Gaskell’s perspective, Watson built a compelling narrative, albeit it precluded any profound exploration into the shaping of Patrick Brontë’s complex personality due to his relationship with Ireland that majorly influenced and oftentimes vexed his daughter. Interestingly, Gaskell relayed a 1841 letter of Brontë, citing an analogous ambition to study in Brussels like Patrick’s departure for Cambridge, leaving his native Ireland.
Watson has given more freedom to Gaskell’s narrative in detailing Brontë’s marriage to Arthur Bell Nicholls, Patrick’s curate and a native of Antrim who studied in Banagher and at the Trinity College Dublin. Though Gaskell didn’t delve into the marriage much in the biography, like her, Nicholls perceived Brontë as a distinctly different entity from “Currer Bell.” The marriage however made room for Brontë to consider her Irish heritage anew – something that is piquing public curiosity lately. Brontë’s honeymoon incorporated tours of Nicholls’s acquaintances in Dublin and Banagher, along with scenic visits to Kilkee and Killarney, while present-day Brontë aficionados can explore an interpretation centre committed to showcasing the early life of her father in Drumballyroney, Co Down, the region recognized as the “Brontë Homeland”.