Talk:Charlotte Brontë/Archive 1

Archive 1

Northern Ireland

What connections did she have with Northern Ireland?

Her father was born Patrick Brunty, the son of a farm labourer, in Northern Ireland. However he seemed ashamed of his origins so went to England, never to return, and changed his name to the less Irish sounding Bronte.

answers

I just did a report on Charlotte, who is one of my favorite authors and found that her child did die along with Charlotte during pregnancy. Also I think Charlottes father Patrick came from Ireland to England

The Tales of the Genii?

Is that supposed to be Genji, and not Genii? I have never heard of a Genii, while I have read parts of the Tales of the Genji, not to mention that there is an article on the Genji.

Is Genii, is the way that the sisters named her own appearances on their juvenilia.

Charlotte Bronte's child

You might have noticed that Charlotte Bronte Died in the early stages of preganancy and not childbirth. None of her immediate family had children. Most of them died before or during their mid twenties, and none save she were married.

Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of Charlotte is especially disheartening here. The worst part is that their father, Patrick, lost his wife and oldest child early in their marriage, and in the space of a few months lost the last of his three of his children, his sister, and would live to see Charlotte be the only child married and die after less than a year. Her widower moved in with Patrick and would remarry later. I usually can't help but tear up when telling friends the family's story. So talented a family, but so tragic a story.--64.114.135.25 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pensionnat?

The title says it all. What does this word mean? Dictionary.com doesn't have it nor does my dictionary. Davhorn 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has this as a definition: "a small hotel in France or other European countries (origin: French)" Yallery Brown 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the Pennsionat Héger in Belgium. Normally, Brontë scholars and biographers always use the French name.

I think the term refers to a boarding school in Belgium.

Genre

Novel isn't a genre is it? Shouldn't it be edited to be romance? Anbellofe 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jane Eyre may be the closest to straight Romance, but Shirley and Villette offer much larger stories and only use marriage to tie up loose ends.--64.114.135.25 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a novel. It's far too realistic to fit into the romance genre.

Governess Charlotte Bronte

Under the occupation subsection with her portrait it is said that she was a governess. Is there anybody with any knowledge of this that could either verify it and/or elaborate about it in her biography? I can see what I can do, but if somebody with a fair amount of knowledge surrounding her could help out or take charge of it that would be wonderful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etni3s (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

• The article already states "In 1839 she took up the first of many positions as governess to various families in Yorkshire, a career she pursued until 1841." I'm not convinced we need to know more than that.

Yallery Brown 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call two posts 'several'. Charlotte seems to have been something of a trial as an employee. She disliked taking care of young children and had no vocation for teaching. She was also prickly as a hedgehog and seriously snobbish. The family with whom she had her second post, the Whites, strike the objective observer as having been singularly kind and accomodating towards their governess, not that Charlotte appreciated it. As a relation of the Sidgewick's, the first family who employed her observed there was no pleasing Miss Bronte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.220.144 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What, did Charlotte kick your dog or something? 71.161.151.129 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

proposed new external link

I'd like to add a link like:

• Free to read on a cell phone - Brontë works.

to the 'External Links' section. This links to a list of Brontë works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate:

• What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
• Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Filomath 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maria/Elizabeth DoB error

There is an error in the paragraph relating to the DoBs of Maria and Elizabeth Bronte. Maria was the eldest sister, not Elizabeth.

Beth 21 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.206.82 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

question...

The article says she is a lesbian, and that she became "deeply attached" to her boss, Constantin Heger. Do I have a "dirty mind"? Deeply attached -- is it not a euphemism for a crush, or an affair? A crush or an affair on a married man would make her bisexual, no? Not a lesbian?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Charlotte traveled to Brussels, Belgium with both of her sisters, Emily and Anne, to study at the Pennsionat Heger. The article is incorrect in stating she traveled with only Emily for the purpose of teaching. There they studied under Constantin Heger and learned French and German, and also studied literature. This was done with the intent to start their own school, which Charlotte attempted upon return to Haworth but was unsuccessful in doing so.

The source of information used for these corrections can be found at www.online-literature.com/brontec/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.6.108 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PHOTO

The photo included has been DISPROVEN to be the portrait of Ch. B. more than a decade ago. I can understand why various websites would like to perpetuate the mythological identity of the woman in the photo, but in this context it's just not right - it's misleading the users of this article. Please, modify the caption under the photograph accordingly - or remove the photo altogether, as it is totally irrelevant to Ch. B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.113.174 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting as the staff at the Harworth Parsonage Museum told me, the photograph does show Charlotte - that would be for sure. They told me there had been a debate about it, however, the experts came to the conclusion that the woman is Charlotte. Do you have a source for your statement that "The photo included has been DISPROVEN to be the portrait of Ch. B. more than a decade ago."? --87.162.220.78 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No serious Bronte scholars believe the woman in the painting looked anything like Charlotte Bronte - this is accepted fact this was painted as publicity for her publishers and was cosmetically enhanced to make a woman who was extremely plain look more sellable to the public so yes the first commentator is right it devalues this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.153 (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What "painting"? And really - what's all this business about "serious Bronte scholars" and "devalues this article"? Whatever you mean, each of the pictures shown in the article can be found in any Bronte-biography published in print, so wikipedia surely is not endangered by also including them.--Winniwuk (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The photograph is not of Charlotte Brontë. It is that of her friend, Ellen Nussey. Here is a link, comparing this portrait to photographs of Mrs. Nussey: http://www.brontesisters.co.uk/Confusing-Images.Ellen-Nussey.html - User:Robsiej (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that source is right and the photo isn't of Charlotte, the options for an alternative are somewhat limited. The painting by Richmond, which was previously the main image in the article, is known to have flattered Charlotte's appearance somewhat, and others appear similarly stylised. If it was possible, I would suggest that the preferred option be to cut out and use Charlotte's image from the painting by Branwell - but I don't know how to do such an operation, nor whether it's allowed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, wait a minute... a private homepage which does not even reveal the name of its author is no reliable source. The picture shown in the article has been acknowledged by the Bronte Society to be a portrait of Charlotte. About 12 years ago the Bronte Society had the second photo which can be seen on the homepage (and which originates from the heirloom of some English Bronte fan) carefully examined and finally rejected the notion that it shows the same woman. Most likely the lady is neither Ellen nor Charlotte but some unknown ancestor of the heiress.--Winniwuk (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's still thinking or talking about this, but I thought it was generally accepted now that the photo depicts Ellen Nussey. The www.brontesisters.co.uk URL, while anonymous and not as esteemed as the Bronte Parsonage, offers a detailed examination of all possible images of the Brontës and cites sources. Nussey and the woman in purported Charlotte photo have the same hairstyle, eyebrows, and profile, including small nose and downturned mouth. If it's not Nussey, then she and Charlotte looked strikingly similar. I know I'm just offering an opinion here, and that's not what this page is for, but is the consensus still that the photo depicts Charlotte? Or has that changed? If it is disputed, should that be reflected in the article? As for alternatives, I think the Branwell portrait would be ideal, or the Richmond portrait would be fine, regardless of whether it is thought to be accurate.Sadiemonster (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

First highlighted in 2008 and the powers that be still won't allow this incorrect image to be removed, it seems a little common sense wouldn't go a miss. It has not dawned on these people to do a simple google search for Ellen Nussey and see that various online images show the same woman well past the age of 38, the age Charlotte died. Here you are: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65345047/CB%20NOT.jpg now is this enough, seven years later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm009 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research, so while sources such as The Brontë Society accept the photo as a picture of Charlotte, Wikipedia should do likewise. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that you have looked at the image I supplied and I thought it was not the same person, agreeing with the Bronte Society. Or did you see what we can all see, that it is the same woman and therefore concludes that you do not have a reliable source. I suggest you contact the The Bronte Society and ask if they are still convinced this is a photograph of Charlotte Bronte. The info may have been reliable when first added but as this picture clearly shows, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65345047/CB%20NOT.jpg it cannot be so now. Or should it just be left there for the next ??? years, misinforming the public, as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm009 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that The Brontë Society can be regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source but "dropboxusercontent.com" can not. What is "dropboxusercontent.com"? What are the site's credentials, its editorial policy? There is nothing on that page that you link to that gives any evidence of its reliability. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Typhus

Did she really die of typhus? You get typhus from the bite of a body louse (pediculus humanus) which is carrying the Rickettsia. Could it have been "typhoid" which is often confused with "typhus"? You get typhoid fever through consuming/drinking fecally contaminated food or water. It says she possibly got it from a housekeeper. In order to get typhus, you need to live in very close conditions (e.g sleeping in the same bed) with someone who has the lice which are located in the seams of infested clothing, or infested bedding. The lice crawl from one person to another through the clothing or bedding. The person who acquires the lice then does not remove their infested clothes so that the lice become established and bite the recipient. For this reason typhus has been seen amongst refugees/concentration camp inmates during wars or periods of upheaval where people are on the move, not changing clothes and sleeping next to others who might have body lice in their clothing. Not suprisingly, it's also seen in homeless people. Hard to believe Bronte would have body lice. Easier to believe she ate/drank food or water contaminated with Salmonella typhi, since proper sewage disposal was unheard of then and frequently human feces contaminated the water supply. If the housekeeper had it and made food with contaminated hands then that is another way to get typhoid fever and the method by which "Typhoid Mary" spread it all over New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.7.219 (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely that Charlotte Bronte died of typhus fever or even typhoid. The symptoms do not match up- and one would think that others close to her would have suffered the same illness if it came from the water or the housekeeper. Why did not her husband or her father get sick too, or even the servants?

It is far more likely that Charlotte Bronte as a result of severe morning sickness- Hyperemesis gravidarum. This was condition was lethal for many sufferers in Bronte's time and we do know that she did not have a strong constitution to begin with. There was no way that she could retain food or liquid. This was confirmed by the servant Martha Brown. I think I got this info from one of Juliet Barker's books. Of course in those days there was no way to give water via IV. The direct cause of death was most likely dehydration coupled with malnutrition.

Kriemhild85 (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

Are there any authoritative resources for pronunciation of the name Brontë? I found a source for "Emily Bronte" on forvo.com, so I added it to that article. Is that citation good enough? --Jchthys (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Portrait

The George Richmond article has a wonderful chalk portrait of Miss Bronte, apparently done during her trip to London in 1850. This, surely, ought to be the Charlotte Bronte article's picture rather than Duyckinick's painting done 18 years after her death. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Winniwuk (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the same image, so there is no real need - regardless, the Richmond copy we have is off colorwise so it is best to use a muted painting then the file we have now. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly the same image just because the painting was based on Richmond's portrait. I've uploaded an adjusted version. Yomangani^talk 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a really bad file. The -image- is 100% the same, as all of the features are the same. We are not in the business of focusing on art but providing an image of what the individual looked like. The fuller body image is more to the point and more accurate than an image with splotching, bad pigmentation, and problems from mold. The current image does a disservice to Bronte and should be reverted back to the original, consensus determined image. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Duyckinick's painting does not give a proper image of what the author really looked like. 1. The Richmond portrait is used in most of CB's biographies, too. 2. the postum "portrait" does not and cannot show CB's real face or body, it is not "accurate" at all as it is quite obviously just an idealized version of the Richmond portrait (the coloured version is even worse) 3. Charlotte herself asked Richmond not to flatter her but to portrait her accurately - with all her facial flaws. She loved the picture and put in on the wall of the parsonage's living-room, where it can still be seen today. I guess in England this is the most famous portrait of the famous writer, apart from Branwell's picture which shows all three sisters.--Winniwuk (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As Ottava Rima quite rightly states, we are not in the business of focusing on art but providing an image of what the individual looked like. Unfortunately he is mistaken in thinking that this argument supports the use of the Duyckinick version. I'm not sure what is meant by "more to the point", but Duyckinick's second-hand idealized Bronte can not be more accurate. The body in the Duyckinick version is not Bronte's any more than the doe eyes, sculpted eyebrows, delicate lips, soft features and lustrous hair are. To claim the images are 100% identical is absurd; other than the hairstyle and the pose they differ in almost every detail. Yomangani^talk 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be 100% blunt here. Duyckinick's portrait has 100% the same facial features as the other portrait. Any claim to the other is a direct lie. Now, in resposne to 1. That is 100% false and I can prove that with direct book citations. Now for 2. It is based 100% on the previous, so your claim is blatantly absurd. The fact that you would want an -orange- portrait of someone that doesn't even come close to representing -human- color is absolutely disturbing. You are making a mockery of her, and if this were a BLP I would ask for you to be blocked if you continued to put such an awful picture in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense. Look at the Duyckinick picture before going off on one. Where does the body come from? Who did her eyebrows? Who straightened her lips and softened her brow? What beautiful new eyes she has. How is a black and white image any closer to human colour? And blocking? Please. Yomangani^talk 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that there are other portraits and drawings of Charlotte, right? And the original is not black and white (like this). It is side by side in the same gallery. One is clearly old, molded, and yellowed. The other is a fine portrait that was preserved. Regardless, there are many portraits of her out there. You happened to favor the one that is most damaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "original", of course, is certainly not in colour, though a tinted impression looks so natural; with that expansive palette you'd almost think she (whoever she is) was in the room. In a choice between the Richmond sketch from life and the Duyckinck fantasy (black and white or tinted), then yes, I favour the Richmond, but if you want to offer other portraits as alternatives, I'd be glad to see them (a rather better engraving from Richmond's original is here, although it is probably too dirty by your standards). Which gallery are you talking about, by the way, when you say "side by side in the same gallery"?. Yomangani^talk 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Perhaps you should actually look at the image pages and see where they are from. The gallery in question is here. Now, there are only two people who want the new image, which is not enough for consensus, let alone for overriding an image that existed there for a long time without good cause. Now, when this page is expanded and brought to standard, it will be removed and consensus will be restored unless it has been done prior to that. This is the last response you will see from me on the matter, because your incivility shows that not only do you understand the issue, you don't really care to understand the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't favour the doll-faced eye-makeup-wearing Duyckinick copy either. What a pity you're not an admin, Ottava Rima, <sarcasm> to be able to block Yomangani yourself, for adding the best-known portrait of CB to this article. Or for his "incivility"! That would look good coming from you. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Bish, do yourself a favor and read before you conclude. I said -if this was a BLP-. Is this a BLP? No. Are you wrong? Yes. So, before responding and making yourself look really bad next time, do yourself a favor and read first. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, lawyering to the rescue! And from the editor who reproached Yomangani that "not only do you understand the issue", no less. BTW, Ottie, would you mind calling me "Bishonen"? Bishonen | talk 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I prefer to refer to you as Bish in order to include Bishzilla and any other potential alter egos that you may throw at me to further my distruction. ; / And it is not "lawyering". It is simply you repeating a mistake that he made. It was hyperbole to say that the original image would be insulting to the subject because of its aesthetic ugliness (from the mold and the rest). I would prefer a clean black and white without mold problems that disfigure her. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, a tempest in a tea cup. I'm not seeing much cohierant (how do you spell that again) argument here, just wild accusations and old scores. I say nay to the Duyckinick pic (per Yo, sorry Ottava), and move on - I spotted this[1] while obsessively stalking Ottavas edits, and hope he points his focus on that instead. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Summing up so far that's 5 votes for the Richmond original and 1 vote for the Duyckinick copy... which is not on show in the National Portrait Gallery in London, by the way. The Richmond, however, is. (The parsonage shows a well-done facsimile). By the way - the Richmond picture is not moldy. I have no idea who came up with that rumour but frankly - they have never seen the original. Unlike the famous Branwell portrait, the Richmond picture was not stuffed into a cupboard by Mr Nicholls but hung in a frame on the living room wall in his house in Ireland. Still, as a compromise the Duyckinick copy could be shown in the article stating that this is an idealized postum remake of the Richmond portrait.--Winniwuk (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a vote. 2. It doesn't have to be at show to be owned by a gallery. 3. If you even look at it you can see the mold instantly. Bright yellow wasn't the original color, by the way. 4. There are other portraits of her in different positions and at better parts of her life. The emphasis on the version that you originally uploaded after 2 years of not contributing anything else is suspicious at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was you who claimed that "there are only two people who want the new image" - this was just a response. Sorry, but have to say it is no use discussing this matter with you. You will stick to your opinion, no matter what others say. And in your opinion the Richmond picture is moldy and ugly. That's why you don't like it. Even though this is the famous original portrait for which the author herself acted as a model and which shows her true features as described by E. Gaskell. (CB was no beauty queen and she never wanted people to make her prettier than she really was.) Anyway, both pictures are in the article now. So, why still quarreling?-Winniwuk (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a Single Purpose Account. 99% of the time, that means sock puppet. The fact that you had someone else proposed and immediate stepped in suggests that you are there sock puppet. Either way, there is no consensus. Your persistence is troubling. The fact that you use peacock terms to back it up without support is further more disturbing. The portrait isn't famous. Looking up her image in yahoo or google gets just as many hits for the 6 other major portraits. How many times is this put on book covers? Never. The new editions ignore it completely. Why? Because its an ugly depiction and no one likes it. This was then followed up by one user who doesn't understand what Bold, Revert, Discuss means (i.e., edit warring instead), then two users who don't understand that this is not a BLP only shows a mockery of consensus in general. The cheer leading behind a blatant SPA account who suddenly appears after more than a year break shows a severe lack of insight behind what they are even doing. There is only one word for this - shameful. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there's only one way of dealing with Ots: I recommend WP:SHUN. Stop replying to him, people. Take the page off your watchlist, Winniwuk and others. Sorry if the posturing gets lonely, Ottie. But talking to you didn't work. Bishonen | talk 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

This speaks for itself. 75.104.128.38 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakes her head in disbelief... Look at that; I hope you get it.... Thanks for the advice, Bishonen. As much as I'd like to discuss the matter seriously in an adult way - this is not happening right here right now. I must admit, I am even a bit shocked about this experience at the English wiki... honestly. Is it allowed to call anybody a "sock puppet" who just happens to have a different opionion?--Winniwuk (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your access on de only tends to suggest that you are acting inappropriately even more. You just happen to come over here and happen to participate in a section that just happens to deal with an image that you just happened to have uploaded on english, not de. This has nothing to do with opinion, but everything to do with you suddenly cheerleading something after 2 years of silence. Single. Purpose. Account. Your contribs reflect that. Your contribs at de verify that you only come here for one purpose. (by the way, I am currently having internet problems, so don't mind the IP - the cache wont accept for whatever reason).75.105.194.213 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather sorry I started this, but quite happy that very human portrait now adorns her article. Chalk suits her. Were there no drawings of Emily or Anne by anyone other than the dissolute Branwell? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind... To answer your question: There are two drawings of Anne made by Charlotte. Emily, however, was never portrayed by her sisters, only by Branwell. (I hope, I am not "acting inappropriately even more" - joke!;-))--Winniwuk (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Charlotte Brontë by Patrick Branwell Brontë restored.jpg

Recently the file File:Charlotte Brontë by Patrick Branwell Brontë restored.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 06:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reader, I Married Him

As far as I can tell, the phrase "Reader, I Married Him" originates in Brontë's Jane Eyre. But today it seems to have wider currency (with variants such as "Reader, She Married Him") used as a shorthand for period drama or domestic stories with a happy ending. It might be beneficial to have some discussion of the influence of this phrase in the article. -- Solipsist (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's used as an essay title in many books of Brontë Criticism as well. Though I have looked up the section in annoted editions, none seem to note anything about the phrase having earlier origin, or being a 'take' on a separate allusion. Most only note that it's the high point in Jane's life. It might, however, be better placed in the Jane Eyre article itself.--Artimaean (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Novels in the biography

The biographical section names four books: Poems by Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell (first book); Jane Eyre (first novel); Mrs. Gaskell's Life (first biography); and ... Emma Brown?

I just corrected the date given for Emma Brown, and also its implied uniqueness, but I don't see what it's doing in there at all. I tried to make more sense of the situation by creating a paragraph for posthumous publications, but I doubt that's a good solution. If it isn't appropriate to mention Shirley or Villette in the mini-biography (or for that matter the posthumous Professor), I don't see what any posthumous stuff is doing there either. Least of all a completion over a century later by another author.

Joe Bernstein, not a registered Wikipedian, and my website also isn't currently working so I can't give you my usual preferred bona fides, but the article Judiciary Act of 1793 is mostly my work, or you could plug http://www.panix.com/~josephb/ into the Wayback Machine. Also, since I'm not a registered Wikipedian, I didn't try to start an article for Constance Savery, but I had the impression she was a reasonably important 20th-century English author, and if someone creates a minimal stub I can probably turn it into a more substantial stub from the website I cited here. (Not having read anything she wrote, except apparently Emma, I couldn't turn it into a real article.) 174.31.241.201 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't think it adds much, and is a magnet for adding trivial information that should be added instead to the article. I'd like to remove but am bringing to talk first. Opinions? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem with seeing it gone. I'm not a fan of info boxes in general. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that was fast! It's such a nice image - would look better without the infobox. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

She's been on my watchlist for a while. :) I do like the picture; it should definitely be kept. Sans box, unless others disagree. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Prefer to keep infobox as it provides a quick summary of info without having to read through the article to get it. Keith D (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Prefer to lose the infobox for the same reason. Disinfobox etc. etc. (She is chiefly known as a governess though, so we should keep that in) Yomangani^talk 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is Bronte not Brontë

• "Charlotte Bronte" -Brontë 17,700,000 results
• "Charlotte Brontë" -Bronte 7,100,000 results

From this it appears clear that per WP:COMMONNAME this article should be moved to Charlotte Bronte which is the WP:COMMONNAME, and also per WP:DIACRITICS which says we prefer majority use over accurate use. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the benefit of such a change? WP:DIACRITICS is hardly emphatic; it states "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works) ... In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources ... Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming ... [some] fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors ... Beware of over-dramatising these issues." WP:COMMONNAME is also not emphatic; it states "[Wikipedia] prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article" but it also states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Both these guidelines refer to the reliable sources used in the article; currently in the article 15 out of the 27 citations are from The Brontë Myth by Lucasta Miller, which consistently uses Brontë. I repeat, what is the benefit of such a proposed change? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, many thanks for your thoughtful and perceptive response. I initially posted a similar search result on Talk:Renée Zellweger, having linked that set of search results to illustrate in conversation with another User how literal application of the WP:DIACRITICS would lead to havoc not only with bios of "foreigners" (which seems to be the main application, why?) but also with British/American bios with modified letters in their names. I wasn't particularly expecting your response - most Talk pages aren't watched, and don't garner replies. Posting the search results above was largely a reference marker, to conduct the same search as done ad infinitum for foreigners' names. I honestly wasn't expecting such an intelligent response.

I hope you won't feel that I've wasted your bytes in reply. The thing is that you are (I assume, as I don't recognise the User name) an unbiased 3rd party to such Google search based discussions as above, and as such having your answer below the search results above provides a useful reality check, I hope at some point some others will see.

I should also note that putting the search results there was since if we did not apply the same measure to English-speaker Brontës and Renée Zellwegers then the question would arise whether our application of guidelines was based on pure typographic issues (such as you raise) or somewhere has lingering the ugly suspicion of some other criteria at work in which biographies the guideline is applied to or/not. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

'Three sisters' and deaths

A recent copyedit by User:Esemgee to the "Early life and education" section changed a sentence to read:

• "In August 1824, Charlotte and three sisters, Emily, Maria, and Elizabeth, were sent to the Clergy Daughters' School at Cowan Bridge in Lancashire."

In my view this contained an ambiguity as it doesn't necessarily have to mean sisters of Charlotte - it could apply to any sisters. Hence I adjusted the sentence to read:

• "In August 1824, Charlotte and three of her sisters, Emily, Maria, and Elizabeth, were sent to the Clergy Daughters' School at Cowan Bridge in Lancashire."

At the same time I adjusted another sentence which I believed to be ambiguous. This previously read:

• "Soon after their deaths, her father removed Charlotte and Emily from the school."

This line follows one which refers to the deaths of two of Charlotte's sisters, although as a sentence on its own it is possible to read it so that Charlotte and Emily had died. Hence I adjusted it to:

• "Soon after these deaths, Patrick removed Charlotte and Emily from the school."

In my view, making "their deaths" become "these deaths" explicitly linked the deaths back to the previous sentence.

Both these changes were reverted back by User:Esemgee. I have restored what I view as the unambiguous version of the 'sisters' line and further amended the 'deaths' line, and brought the disagreement to the talk page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Life of Charlotte Bronte

Charlotte was ratchet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.245.2 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Charlotte's politics

I thought I'd just be bold, and delete the sentence "Politically a tory..." at the end of the early life section. One of the two sources for this information is a "page not found" link to a magazine, and the other is a link to a website just stating that she was "politically a tory", without giving any further sources. It would clearly be of great interest to know about the political inclinations of such an important intellectual figure. However, since she was a writer and not a politician, I think it would be very desirable that any inferences on her politics be based on her own writing. I ran a search on googlescholar to look for studies on the matter, but couldn't find much: it would be very nice if someone competent on the matter were able to point to relevant information. In the meanwhile, however, I think it would be naive at best to categorically assign her to a political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio Gallo (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources so if a reliable source states that she was a Tory then such information can be in the article. It is not for Wikipedia editors to infer facts based on artistic output. The website you mention which states she was "politically a tory" is The Brontë Society, which I should consider a reliable source in itself. I see no reason why the information shouldn't be reinstated, although it should be reworded so as not to be a copyright violation. I haven't time to do this at this particular moment, but will do so later if someone else doesn't do so first. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't propose that editors themselves infer information from artistic output: I requested that they point to sources where this is done competently, and in an accountable way. The one of the two cited sources that was not a broken link clearly does not provide evidence that justifies assigning a simplistic political affiliation to this author. I am new to editing wikipedia, so even though I was bold in proposing this change, I will not engage in further discussion on this matter, other than to express my hope that a competent person helps clarify what is clearly an unsatisfactory situation, given the importance of providing solid evidence when assigning a political party to an author whose stated inclinations will influence the opinions of millions of people. Ignacio Gallo (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only repeat that Wikipedia is based on sources, in particular sources which are deemed to be reliable (see WP:IRS). If a reliable source makes a statement about something, then the perceived reliability of that source is sufficient to warrant inclusion of the stated fact. In this instance I would consider The Brontë Society, who run the Brontë Parsonage Museum, to be a reliable source, and it isn't necessary for all statements which they issue to be explained and justified before they can be included in Wikipedia. Of course, it would be interesting - and preferable from a scholarly point of view - if the "politically a tory" statement was backed by a detailed analysis and explanation (and it probably is somewhere else), but I suspect that from the Brontë Society's point of view such detail would risk making the brief summary on the webpage become less easily readable for the general readership which they are addressing. I very much doubt however that the "politically a tory" statement has just been made up or casually arrived at; I suspect that detailed viewing of Charlotte's many letters has resulted in such a viewpoint. Of course scholars change views on matters all the time in the light of new discoveries, and when that happens Wikipedia reflects those changes. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation consistency

I am putting in some consistency into the citations. I am doing it step by step so that people can see what I have done:

1. The same Fraser book was cited two different ways. Now combined into one style. There are two different publication dates for the Miller book 2002 and 2005. I checked using WkiBlame those short citations with no date (now dated 2002) were originally dated 2002 -- The 2005 edition was added later.
2. moved the 2005 edition down into the References section, leaving a short citation behind. The short Lane citation was originally added with Revision as of 10:45, 19 April 2007 and had a year 1953 (it was altered with this vandalism (Revision as of 13:48, 15 April 2008) -- the vandalism was not caught at the time, but all the other date changes have already been fixed -- used that information to fix the short Lane citation.

-- PBS (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Backwardscopy

see Backwardscopy at the top of talk page

The books published by "Kiddy Monster Publication" contain copies of this article and AFAICT without the copyright notices required by the copyleft licence. If I am mistaken then Wikiepdia has a serious copyright violation in this article. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Help! Textbook example of dangling modifier in article's very first sentence!

The first sentence of the article now reads:

"Charlotte Brontë (/ˈbrɒnti/; 21 April 1816 – 31 March 1855) was an English novelist and poet, the eldest of the three Brontë sisters who survived into adulthood, whose novels are English literature standards."

That, boys and girls, is a textbook example of a dangling modifier. Is the last phrase -- "whose novels are English literature standards" -- meant to be about Charlotte (mentioned in the first part of the sentence) or about all three Bronte sisters (second part)? Logic suggests the first (this is, after all, an article about Charlotte, not her sisters) but proximity suggests the second.

If you know the answer, please fix the text. It is embarrassing for Wikipedia that an article about a great English writer begins with a sentence containing such a basic error in English composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.178.222 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Miniature books by Branwell and Charlotte

The genesis of genius: Tiny books by the Brontë children suggest the unbounded creativity to come – Harvard University library preservation, digitization, and online exhibit

--namely, these nine books: "Only about 20 volumes[!] of Brontë juvenilia are known to remain. Harvard holds nine, the Brontë Museum at the family home in England owns a few, and the remaining are scattered among museums and private collectors."

--P64 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Brontë" again

I've found a source for the pronunciation of the surname Brontë, from Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. To quote from the Explanatory Notes:

"When our research shows that an author's pronunciation of his or her name differs from common usage, the author's pronunciation is listed first, and the descriptor commonly precedes the more familiar pronunciation."

The book then goes on to list BronTEE as the author's pronunciation, but commonly pronounced by others as BronTAY.

This source is available on Google Books, so anyone can check it online. DORC (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

200 anniversary

Next year will be 200 anniversary of her birth is there any thoughts about getting article to GA for this? Keith D (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. Yes, it would be nice to get a little green badge - do you think it would need a lot of work? Even better would be to get it to FA and have it on the main page on the anniversary day, though that might be a stretch too far - certainly for me and my current supply of sources (one metabiography and one fictionalised account of her post-Jane Eyre life). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that FA may be a bit of a stretch, but the backlog at GA may mean that unless there is a reviewer available it may not get done. The main work is the referencing of some of the sections and handling the tags that are present in the article. The lead could do with some expansion but that would probably be the last thing to do once the text is in shape. Keith D (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo...again

An article by Claire Harman in Times Literary Supplement, September 2015, http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1613719.ece comprehensively debunks the identification of the profile photograph as being Bronte: she lays out evidence that pretty conclusively demonstrates that it is Nussey (not least that the Bronte Parsonage Museum possesses another copy of the same photo, labelled "Miss Ellen Nussey, friend of Charlotte Brontë , c.1860"). This is a reliable source and a reliable writer, so I think it passes the Wiki:RS test (original research doesn't come into it, because it is sourced). I think it at the very least calls the photo into sufficient doubt to leave it as the profile box picture. I have therefore swapped it with the Richmond portrait, moving the photo further down with an explanation of its nature. The Richmond portrait is known to be flattering, but it was at least taken from life, so it seems most appropriate as a reader's first view of Bronte. (Comment added on 18 December 2015 by unregistered editor from IP address 62.25.109.201)

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of sources, and if they state different things, then Wikipedia needs to reflect that. So, while the Brontë Society still seem to support use of the photo as portraying Charlotte, it would be inappropriate to ignore that and just use the TLS (I am not entirely convinced that the other source used - www.brontesisters.co.uk - passes the reliable source test). Consequently I have adjusted the photo caption to state that the identity of the sitter is disputed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Does the Bronte Society still support the identification? Their website retains the image - but what are the scholarly credentials of the site, or its webmaster? Has anyone with academic standing representing the society *recently* upheld the identification with Charlotte?

The Brontë Society was founded in 1893 and is responsible for running the Brontë Parsonage Museum. Its opinions and views carry considerable weight. Although the society has been in the news recently over its internal conflicts, I do not see this as reason to assume its website is not under its editorial oversight. The society must be aware of questions raised over the identity of the person in the photograph, but so far, for whatever reasons, the society still uses the photograph as representing an image of Charlotte. Maybe one day that position will change, or maybe the society will produce reason/s why it believes the image is of Charlotte. So far we have a TLS article stating a case on the identity of the photograph subject, and the Brontë Society so far failing to adopt a similar position, and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to favour one over the other. In addition, will you please read WP:BRD and WP:3RR regarding edit warring, and please create an account so that your posts here can be signed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Related Works

The book The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society mentions this woman, and has won several awards. Is that of enough note to put in the article? I'm new so just let me know. If so, under what title? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaddieKM (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Brussels

Two schools existed next door to each other on the West side of the Central Park, on the hillside above the old town. The higher school, on the West side of Rue Royale, was a girls' boarding school catering for the upper classes, and run by Zoe Parent. Next to it, slightly lower on the slope, was a State boys school catering for the local lads, and thus very working class: it was run by Constantin Heger. In The Professor and Villette, she paints a clear picture of a continuous battle to protect the girls from the rather predatory boys, and although the couple did to some extent work together, Charlotte portrays a very strict demarcation, the couple kept everything almost hermetically distinct: you should not suggest any intercourse between their schools, it didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.255.224 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Common pronunciation

I think the common pronunciation should be restored, as it is well-sourced content. It's not 100% "incorrect". This edit seems a bit POINTy and prescriptive. Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of Literature says "When our research shows that an author's pronunciation of his or her name differs from common usage, the author's pronunciation is listed first, and the descriptor commonly precedes the more familiar pronunciation." So inclusion seem perfectly fair and reasonable to me. As for all members the Brontë family, in fact. I see that the same deletion has also been made, also without any discussion, at the individual article for each family member. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - The source states the order it uses for giving the pronunciations but still lists both versions rather than omitting the more familiar version or stating that it should be disregarded. To me this suggests that both the author's version (probably due to their regional accent) and common pronunciation are both valid and should be given in the article(s). (Also the cite covered both versions so should be restored regardless of whether one or both pronunciations are given.) EdwardUK (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Any more comments? Any objections before I restore? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Over a week with no objections, so have restored. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Haworth school

I propose a small edit that includes more details about the school that Charlotte, Emily, and Anne started. It was mentioned in the opening paragraph and never expanded upon in the original article. I intend to use Claire Harman's biography as a source. Any objections? Thanks. QuinlynCS (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Death

Charlotte is described as being in the first few months of pregnancy. She was an 'elderly primigravida'and was very thin; the latter is certainly a risk factor for hyperemesis gravidarum.

In the past, there was no treatment for hyperemesis gravidarum; some badly afflicted people could vomit throughout pregnancy, and some certainly died.

Claire Harman in 'Charlotte Brontë a Life' (Viking, 2015) clearly describes the sighs and symptoms of hyperemesis, and it's very likely that this is what caused her death. The 'who' citation at the start of this article could be replaced by Harman's book.

Korhomme (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

People do not "catch" typhus like a cold. Typhus is spread through the human body louse's feces. The feces contains the Rickettsial organism that causes the disease. The louse's feces must be rubbed into an open wound created by the louse's bite in order for the organism to gain entry into the body. There is some evidence that inhaling louse feces may also cause disease. Either way, this happens under conditions of extreme privation where people are not changing their clothes for months on end AND live in close contact with others who have body lice. This would not have been the case for Charlotte Bronte. She died of other causes. I suggest you take a course in clinical microbiology before you make such stupid claims, editor. Either that or read Wikipedia's article on typhus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Luckily", this lady has survived death - as every human being does, of course - and so she turned up from the spirit world (being a ghost) in London around 1966 with famous physical direct voice medium Leslie Flint at a seance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ox0xExYgjI NO FAKE! But pure divine truth!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.192.186 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Disputed image

Disputed photograph taken by Emery Walker in 1918; sources are in disagreement over whether this image is of Brontë or of her friend, Ellen Nussey.

Should the disputed photograph copy of Brontë, taken by Emery Walker in 1918, from an original carte de visite photo, allegedly made during her honeymoon in 1855, be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. there is quite a bit of historical detail (in French) at the image upload page File: CharlotteBronte.jpg.

see especially https://brontesisters.co.uk/Photo-of-Charlotte-Bronte.html; the file is incorrectly used in many international wikipeda pages on Charlotte Bronte! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:4621:7900:b50f:a008:9f96:1c6f (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References