
|
|
Emily Brontë in Brussels
The
Brontë’s literary legacy from their
time in Brussels is the two novels written by Charlotte: The
Professor and the very autobiographical Villette. Furthermore, letters
written
by her from that time have survived, which now help scholars and
Brontë fans
alike to understand this important period of their lives. To our
disappointment
this can not be said of Emily. As we have only Charlotte’s
material, our main focus of Brussels is centred around her most of the time.
It is time to address the balance and give
credit to Emily’s side of the Brussels’ story.
Emily
felt the most happiest when she was at
home, at the Parsonage in Haworth with the wild, windswept moors behind the back
of the house.
Periods away from her beloved moors, during her time as pupil or
teacher, at
Roe Head and Law Hill, were overshadowed by homesickness. |
|
 |
One can only imagine how daunting the prospect
must have been for Emily to know she would leave her regulated life and
quiet home
again, once she knew she would leave for Brussels. How
different her new life would be, in a strange boarding school, in the
midst of
a large city and in a foreign country.
Though there are several reasons why Emily
(instead of Anne) had been chosen to join Charlotte, her own, and
probably
only, reason why she did venture to leave her home was her thirst for
knowledge, for learning. She would enter a whole new world of other
literatures, and foreign languages. This journey would bring a great
opportunity to broaden her mind and exercise her creative and mental
powers.
And how did Emily experience all this? What
did she make of Brussels, the Pensionnat? And what was going through
her mind; how did she
feel?
As with the rest of Emily’s personal life,
so much is shrouded in mystery. She left no letters, and while in Brussels, she kept
no diary. We can only form our conclusions by reading other
people’s accounts. Charlotte’s letters
to Ellen Nussey are the most important.
Emily’s
life would be transformed from the
‘external’ world of the Parsonage in Yorkshire to an ‘internal’ world of
the Pensionnat. This
‘Institution of Instruction’, the
boarding school run by Constantin and Zoë Heger, lay in the
sunken street of
Rue d’Isabelle, towered over by high buildings around; the
long, white front of
the school concealing an inner world of a self-contained, controlled
and
efficiently run establishment. And inside this internal world was an
inner
sanctum, a beautifully kept garden. Though a peaceful retreat within a
noisy and bustling
city, with its secret
Allée Défendue and secluded arching tree boughs,
this garden was surrounded by
walls and sides of other houses, giving it a sense of a
‘preserved fortress’.
Emily must have felt imprisoned in what she
might have perceived as a place of detention.
It
was however also a place of learning.
Emily’s knowledge of foreign languages, in
particular French, was
limited to what
she was taught at Roe Head, what Charlotte had passed on to her and
what she
had learned herself.
She had a great deal of catching up to do
in the first few months she stayed in the Pensionnat. During the free
hours of
the day, she devoted all her spare time to further reading and more
studies. It
would have been a serious test for her, not only having to speak and
write
French everyday, but also to be taught in it.
Emily and Charlotte were given French
lessons by Constantin Heger, a gifted teacher who would notice his
pupils’
talents and was able to cultivate and develop them.
In May 1842, a few months after their
arrival, Charlotte writes to Ellen:
"…..Hitherto
both Emily and I
have had good health, and therefore we have been able to work well.
There is
one individual of whom I have not yet spoken--M Heger, the husband of
Madame.
He is professor of rhetoric, a man of power as to mind, but very
choleric and
irritable in temperament; a little black ugly being, with a face that
varies in
expression……Emily and he don't draw well together
at all. Emily works like a horse
and she has had great difficulties to contend with--far greater than I
have
had.”
Between
Emily and Heger arose a tension
that remained charged during the entire time Emily was
Heger’s pupil. He was an
exacting master, inflexible, highly irritable and erratic.
They clashed at the very first lesson over
Heger’s method of teaching. He proposed the sisters to read
some of the great
passages, masterpieces from French literature, discuss and analyse them
and
then to get these English pupils to write essays, expressing their own
thoughts, based on the style of these models.
Emily opposed and rebelled; she could not agree
with his system.
Charlotte recalls: “…she
saw no good to be derived form it;
and that by adopting it, they should lose all originality of thought
and
expression.”
Heger did not perhaps know Emily
had been
writing poems, tales and essays from a very young age and that she had
long
since passed the stage of finding her own distinct voice and style.
Despite
Emily’s initial objections, she produced her
‘devoirs’, the required essays.
During the summer of 1842, Emily worked diligently, producing some ten
works.
- Le Chat , 15th
May
- Le
Siège d’Oudenarde
- Portait: Le Roi
Harold avant la bataille de Hastings, June
- Lettre (Madame), 16th July
- Letter (Ma chère Maman), 26th
July
- L’Amour
Filial, 5th August
- Lettre (d’un frère à un
frère), 5th August
- Le Papillon, 11th
August
- Le Palais de la
Mort, 18th October
No other poetry or prose by Emily survives
from this period in her life, so these devoirs give an important
insight into
her creative writing. They show that Emily’s essays were
superior both in power
and imagination to Charlotte’s.
Her devoirs astounded,
impressed and even sometimes shocked Heger, as Emily’s essays
conveyed a
pessimistic, misanthropic and cynic view on mankind and a shrewd
understanding of
the cruelty in the world around her.
Heger’s view of Emily changed and he was
impressed by her daring and originality of mind which revealed from her
work.
He recognized Emily’s to be the more exciting and challenging
mind of the
sisters and began to value her qualities.
Years later he said; “She
should have been a man – a great navigator…her
strong imperious will would
never have been daunted by opposition or difficulty, never have been
given way
but with life. She had a head for logic, and a capability of argument
unusual
in a man and rarer indeed in a woman…[but]impairing
this gift was her stubborn tenacity of will which rendered her obtuse
to all
reasoning where her own wishes, or her own sense of right, was
concerned.” Emily, according to
Heger, was also,
“egoistical
and exacting, and exercised a kind of unconscious tyranny over her [i.e. Charlotte].”
Continue to the next page to read Emily's story
|
|