By+Karen+Swallow+Prior

Consider the selfie. By now， its a fairly mundane artistic tradition， even after a profusion of thinkpieces have wrestled with its rise thanks to the so-called Me Generations “obsession” with social media.1 Anyone in possession of a cheap camera phone or laptop can take a picture of themselves， edit it（or not）， and share it with the world in a matter of seconds.

But before the selfie came “the self，” or the fairly modern concept of the independent“individual.” The now-ubiquitous selfie expresses in miniature the seismic2 conceptual shift that came about centuries ago， spurred in part by advances in printing technology and new ways of thinking in philosophy. Its not that the self didnt exist in pre-modern cultures： Rather， the emphasis the Protestant Reformation3 in the 16th century placed on personal will， conscience， and understanding—rather than tradition and authority—in matters of faith spilled over the bounds of religious experience into all of life. Perhaps the first novel to best express the modern idea of the self was Jane Eyre， written in 1847 by Charlotte Bront？.4

Those who remember Jane Eyre solely as required reading in high-school English class likely recall most vividly its overthe-top Gothic tropes： a childhood banishment to a deathhaunted room， a mysterious presence in the attic， a Byronic hero，5 and a cold mansion going up in flames. Its more seemingly the stuff of Lifetime6 television， not revolutions. But as unbelievable as many of the events of the novel are， even today， Bront？s biggest accomplishment wasnt in plot devices. It was the narrative voice of Jane—who so openly expressed her desire for identity， definition， meaning， and agency7—that rang powerfully true to its 19th-century audience. In fact， many early readers mistakenly believed Jane Eyre was a true account （in a clever marketing scheme， the novel was subtitled， “An Autobiography”）， perhaps a validation of her characters authenticity.

The way that novels paid attention to the particularities of human experience （rather than the universals of the older epics and romances8） made them the ideal vehicle to shape how readers understood the modern individual. The rise of the literary form was made possible by the technology of the printing press， the print culture that followed， and the widening literacy that was cultivated for centuries until Jane Eyres publication. The novel seemed perfectly designed to tell Bront？s first-person narrative of a destitute orphan girl searching for a secure identity—first among an unloving family， then an austere charity school，9 and finally with the wealthy but unattainable employer she loves. Unable to find her sense of self through others， Jane makes the surprising decision to turn inward.

The broader cultural implications of the story—its insistence on the value of conscience and will—were such that one critic fretted some years after its publication that the “most alarming revolution of modern times has followed the invasion of Jane Eyre.” Before the Reformation and the Enlightenment that followed， before Rene Descartess cogito ergo sum （“I think， therefore I am”），10 when the sources of authority were external and objective， the aspects of the self so central to todays understanding mattered little because they didnt really affect the course of an individuals life. The Reformation empowered believers to read and interpret the scriptures for themselves， rather than relying on the help of clergy； by extension， this seemed to give people permission to read and interpret their own interior world.

To be sure， early novelists before Bront？ such as Frances Burney， Daniel Defoe， Samuel Richardson， and Mary Shelley contributed to the forms developing art of the firstperson narrator.11 But these authors used the contrivances of edited letters or memoirs， devices that tended toward underdeveloped characters， episodic plots，12 and a general sense of artificiality—even when the stories were presented not as fiction but “histories.” No earlier novelist had provided a voice so seemingly pure， so fully belonging to the character， as Bront？. She developed her art alongside her sisters， the novelists Anne and Emily （all of them publishing under gender-neutral pseudonyms），13 but it was Charlotte whose work best captured the sense of the modern individual. Anne Bront？s novels Agnes Grey and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall contributed to the novels ability to offer social commentary and criticism， while the Romantic sensibilities of Emily Bront？s Wuthering Heights explored how the “other，” in the form of the dark， unpredictable Heathcliff， can threaten the integrity of the self.

One of the greatest testimonies to Bront？s accomplishment came from Virginia Woolf，14 a modernist pioneer who represents a world far removed from that of Bront？s Victorianism. “As we open Jane Eyre once more，” a doubting Woolf wrote in The Common Reader， “we cannot stifle the suspicion that we shall find her world of imagination as antiquated， mid-Victorian， and out of date as the parsonage on the moor， a place only to be visited by the curious， only preserved by the pious.”15 Woolf continues， “So we open Jane Eyre； and in two pages every doubt is swept clean from our minds.” There is nothing of the book， Woolf declares， “except Jane Eyre.” Janes voice is the source of the power the book has to absorb the reader completely into her world. Woolf explains how Bront？ depicts：

… an overpowering personality， so that， as we say in real life， they have only to open the door to make themselves felt. There is in them some untamed ferocity perpetually at war with the accepted order of things which makes them desire to create instantly rather than to observe patiently.16

It is exactly this willingness—desire， even—to be “at war with the accepted order of things” that characterizes the modern self. While we now take such a sense for granted， it was， as Bront？s contemporaries rightly understood， radical in her day. More disturbing to Bront？s Victorian readers than the sheer sensuality of the story and Janes deep passion was “the heroines refusal to submit to her social destiny，”as the literary critic Sandra M. Gilbert explains. Indeed， one contemporary review complained， “It is true Jane does right， and exerts great moral strength，” but the critic continues that“it is the strength of a mere heathen17 mind which is a law unto itself.” In presenting such a character， the reviewer worries，Bront？ has “overthrown authority” and cultivated “rebellion.”And in a way they were right： “I resisted all the way，” Jane says as she is dragged by her cruel aunt toward banishment in the bedroom where her late18 uncle died. This sentence， Joyce Carol Oates argues， serves as the theme of Janes whole story.

But Janes resistance is not the empty rebellion of nihilism or self-absorption （consider how current practitioners of “selfie culture” frequently weather accusations of narcissism）.19 Rather， her quest for her true self peels back the stiff layers of conventionality in order to discover genuine morality and faith. As Bront？ explains in the preface to the novels second edition （a preface necessitated by the moral outrage that followed the novels publication），

Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last…These things and deeds are diametrically20 opposed： they are as distinct as is vice from virtue. Men too often confound them： they should not be confounded： appearance should not be mistaken for truth； narrow human doctrines， that only tend to elate and magnify a few，21 should not be substituted for the world.

In a letter to a friend， Bront？ responded to her criticsobjections by declaring， “Unless I have the courage to use the language of Truth in preference to the jargon22 of Conventionality， I ought to be silent...”

The refusal of such a woman， who lived in such a time， to be silent created a new mold for the self—one apparent not only in todays Instagram photos， but also more importantly in the collective modern sense that a persons inner life can allow her to effect change from the inside out.

想想自拍吧。現(xiàn)在，自拍成了一種再尋常不過的藝術(shù)傳統(tǒng)，甚至是在鋪天蓋地的批評文章全力開火之后，自拍之風(fēng)仍然因所謂的唯我的一代“病態(tài)地迷戀”社交媒體而蔓延開來。任何人只要有一部價(jià)格低廉、具備照相功能的手機(jī)或者筆記本電腦就能自拍、修圖（或者不修圖），然后與世界分享之：整個(gè)過程只需要幾秒鐘的時(shí)間。

但自拍出現(xiàn)之前先有“自我”，或者說獨(dú)立“個(gè)體”這一非?，F(xiàn)代的觀念。如今無處不在的自拍以小見大地表達(dá)了幾個(gè)世紀(jì)之前所發(fā)生的巨大的觀念轉(zhuǎn)變，這一轉(zhuǎn)變一定程度上是由印刷技術(shù)與哲學(xué)新思想促成的。這并不是說自我在前現(xiàn)代文化中就不存在：相反，16世紀(jì)宗教改革在信仰方面對于個(gè)人意志、良知與理解——而非傳統(tǒng)與權(quán)威——的強(qiáng)調(diào)從宗教生活的界限外溢到生活的方方面面?；蛟S第一部最能表達(dá)“自我”這一現(xiàn)代觀念的小說就是夏洛蒂·勃朗特于1847年寫就的《簡·愛》了。

那些僅僅將《簡·愛》作為高中英語課必讀書目印刻在記憶中的人很可能會(huì)想起作品中夸張的哥特式表達(dá)手法：童年被關(guān)進(jìn)被死亡陰影籠罩著的房間、閣樓中神秘的存在、一位拜倫式的英雄以及在騰騰烈焰中焚毀的冷冰冰的宅子。這看上去更像是Lifetime電視臺(tái)才會(huì)播出的情節(jié)，而非思想變革。盡管這本小說中的許多情節(jié)不足為信，甚至放到今天依然如此，但是勃朗特最高的成就并非在于情節(jié)構(gòu)想，而是在于簡的敘述——她公開地表達(dá)了自己對于身份、定義、意義以及施為能力的渴望——讓19世紀(jì)的讀者產(chǎn)生了強(qiáng)烈的真實(shí)感。事實(shí)上，許多早期的讀者誤把《簡·愛》當(dāng)做一部真實(shí)的記錄（出于高明的營銷手段，這部小說的副標(biāo)題為“一部自傳”），或許這證明了作品人物的真實(shí)性。

由于小說關(guān)注人類經(jīng)歷的特性（而不像早期史詩與羅曼司關(guān)注共性），因此小說成為理想的載體來使讀者形成對現(xiàn)代個(gè)體的理解。小說這種文學(xué)形式之所以能夠興起，原因在于印刷技術(shù)的革新、隨之而來的出版文化以及《簡·愛》出版前幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來廣大民眾識(shí)字水平的不斷提高。這部小說似乎完美地呈現(xiàn)了勃朗特以第一人稱敘述的一位貧窮的孤女對某種穩(wěn)定身份的追尋——首先是在一個(gè)缺乏關(guān)愛的家庭，然后是在一個(gè)環(huán)境嚴(yán)苛的慈善學(xué)校，最后是在她富裕卻愛而不得的雇主身上。因無法從他人身上找到自我的意義，簡出乎意料地決定轉(zhuǎn)向內(nèi)心。

這個(gè)故事——堅(jiān)持良知與意志的價(jià)值——的文化影響如此廣泛，以至于某位批評家在該書出版數(shù)年之后憤憤道：“當(dāng)今最令人驚恐的革命就是從《簡·愛》的入侵開始的?！痹陔S后的宗教改革與啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)之前，在勒內(nèi)·笛卡爾的“我思故我在”之前，在權(quán)威的建立還是來源于外在、客觀的時(shí)候，現(xiàn)今人們意識(shí)中如此核心的“自我”概念在那時(shí)是無足輕重的，因?yàn)椤白晕摇痹诋?dāng)時(shí)并不會(huì)真正影響個(gè)體的生命軌跡。宗教改革賦予信徒自行閱讀、解讀《圣經(jīng)》的權(quán)力，而無需依靠神職人員的幫助；進(jìn)一步說，這似乎給了人們閱讀、解讀自己內(nèi)心世界的許可。

可以肯定的是，勃朗特之前的早期小說家，比如弗朗西斯·伯尼、丹尼爾·笛福、塞繆爾·理查遜和瑪麗·雪萊，均為小說發(fā)展中的第一人稱敘事藝術(shù)作出了貢獻(xiàn)。但這些作者故意使用一些類似編輯過的信件或者回憶錄之類的寫作手法。這些手法往往造成角色塑造不夠豐滿、情節(jié)比較松散，而且總體上給人一種生編硬造的感覺——哪怕這些故事并非作為虛構(gòu)作品而是“歷史”呈現(xiàn)時(shí)也一樣。沒有一位早期的小說家像勃朗特那樣發(fā)出一個(gè)聽起來如此純粹的聲音，一個(gè)完完全全屬于某個(gè)角色的聲音。她與同為小說家的姐妹安妮和艾米莉一同（她們?nèi)慷际褂弥行缘幕l(fā)表作品）推進(jìn)小說藝術(shù)，但夏洛蒂的作品最好地捕捉到了現(xiàn)代個(gè)體的意識(shí)。安妮·勃朗特的小說《艾格妮絲·格雷》和《懷爾德菲爾府的房客》為小說進(jìn)行社會(huì)評論與批評的能力作出了貢獻(xiàn)，而艾米莉·勃朗特在《呼嘯山莊》中表現(xiàn)出的浪漫情感則探討了以陰郁黑暗、反復(fù)無常的希斯克利夫?yàn)榛淼摹八摺比绾文軌蛲{到“自我”的完整。

對于勃朗特的成就，最大的肯定之一來自弗吉尼亞·伍爾芙，這位現(xiàn)代主義的先鋒代表著與勃朗特的維多利亞式的世界截然不同的世界?！霸俅畏_《簡·愛》，”持懷疑態(tài)度的伍爾芙在《普通讀者》中寫道，“我們無法不去懷疑自己會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)她的想象世界像荒原上的教區(qū)牧師寓所一般老舊、充滿維多利亞中期的色彩而且過時(shí)，只有好奇的人才會(huì)造訪，只有虔誠的人才會(huì)保存?！蔽闋栜浇又鴮懙?，“因此我們翻開《簡·愛》；翻了兩頁，所有的疑慮都從腦海里打消了。”書里什么也沒有，伍爾芙宣稱，“除了簡·愛?！焙喌穆曇艟褪沁@本書的力量源泉，讓讀者完全沉浸在她的世界里。伍爾芙解釋了勃朗特是如何刻畫的：

……一種壓倒性的強(qiáng)烈個(gè)性，以至于像我們現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中所說的，他們只需要打開門就能讓人們感覺到他們。他們帶有某種未被馴服的野性，永遠(yuǎn)與公認(rèn)的秩序抗?fàn)帲@讓他們渴望立刻地創(chuàng)造而不是耐心地遵守。

正是這種“與公認(rèn)的秩序抗?fàn)帯钡囊庠浮踔?，渴望——?gòu)成了現(xiàn)代自我的特點(diǎn)。雖然我們?nèi)缃癜堰@種意識(shí)視為理所當(dāng)然，可是正如勃朗特同時(shí)代的人們所認(rèn)為的那樣，這在她的時(shí)代是激進(jìn)的。相比故事純粹的感性與簡的激情，對于維多利亞時(shí)期的勃朗特讀者而言更令人不安的是“女主角拒絕屈服于自身的社會(huì)命運(yùn)，”文學(xué)批評家桑德拉·M.吉爾伯特解釋道。確實(shí)，一篇當(dāng)時(shí)的評論抱怨稱“無可否認(rèn)簡做得沒錯(cuò)而且散發(fā)出了巨大的道德力量，”但這位批評家繼續(xù)寫道，“這股力量來自區(qū)區(qū)一個(gè)不信教的頭腦，而且這個(gè)頭腦自己為自己制定法則。”通過呈現(xiàn)這樣一個(gè)角色，這位評論家擔(dān)心，勃朗特已經(jīng)“顛覆了權(quán)威”并且培養(yǎng)了“反叛精神”。從某種意義上說，他們是對的：“我一路反抗，”簡在被她冷酷的舅母拖進(jìn)舅舅去世時(shí)所在的房間時(shí)說出了這樣一句話。喬伊斯·卡洛爾·歐茨認(rèn)為這一句點(diǎn)出了簡·愛整個(gè)故事的主題。

但簡的抗?fàn)幉⒎鞘翘摕o主義那種空洞的反叛或是出于自戀的原因（想想時(shí)下“自拍文化”的實(shí)踐者是如何經(jīng)受常常被指責(zé)自戀的）。相反，她對真正自我的追求把僵硬的習(xí)俗的禁錮一層層剝下，為的是發(fā)現(xiàn)真正的道德與信仰。正如勃朗特在小說第二版序言（這篇序言就是為了回應(yīng)小說出版后引發(fā)的道德憤慨）中解釋的那樣：

習(xí)俗并不是道德。自以為是也不是宗教。抨擊前者并不等于抨擊后者……這些事情與行為是完全對立的：就像善惡一樣分明。人們總是弄混，而它們不應(yīng)被弄混：表象不應(yīng)被誤認(rèn)為是真理；狹隘的人類教條，如果只會(huì)讓少數(shù)人得意洋洋、高高在上，就不應(yīng)被當(dāng)作普世原則。

在一封寫給朋友的信中，針對她的批評者所發(fā)出的反對聲音，勃朗特回應(yīng)道，“除非我有勇氣使用真理的語言而不是習(xí)俗的套話，否則我應(yīng)該沉默……”

生活在這樣一個(gè)時(shí)代的這樣一名女性拒絕沉默，為“自我”創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)新的典范——這樣一種自我不僅明顯存在于當(dāng)下的Instagram照片中，而且更重要的是明顯存在于集體的現(xiàn)代意識(shí)中，這種意識(shí)認(rèn)為一個(gè)人的內(nèi)心生活可以讓她由內(nèi)而外地發(fā)生改變。

1. mundane： 普通的，平凡的；a profusion of： 豐富的，大量的；thinkpiece： 時(shí)事短評，內(nèi)幕新聞報(bào)道。

2. seismic： 巨大而急劇的。

3. Protestant Reformation： 宗教改革，指16世紀(jì)至17世紀(jì)西方基督教自上而下的教派分裂及改革運(yùn)動(dòng)，是新教形成的開端。

4. Charlotte Bront？： 夏洛蒂·勃朗特（1816—1855），英國女作家，世界名著《簡·愛》的作者，生于英國北部約克郡豪渥斯的一個(gè)鄉(xiāng)村牧師家庭，她與兩個(gè)妹妹（艾米莉·勃朗特和安妮·勃朗特）在英國文學(xué)史上有“勃朗特三姐妹”之稱。

5. Gothic：（文學(xué)風(fēng)格）哥特派的，指以恐怖、超自然、死亡、古堡、黑夜、吸血鬼等為標(biāo)志性元素的文學(xué)體裁；trope： 比喻，轉(zhuǎn)義；banishment：放逐，驅(qū)逐；Byronic hero：“拜倫式英雄”，指19世紀(jì)英國浪漫主義詩人拜倫作品中的一類人物形象。他們高傲倔強(qiáng)，既不滿現(xiàn)實(shí)，要求奮起反抗，同時(shí)又顯得憂郁、孤獨(dú)，始終找不到正確的出路。

6. Lifetime： 是美國領(lǐng)先的女性有線電視頻道，該臺(tái)主要出品電影、情景劇和連續(xù)劇。

7. agency： 能動(dòng)作用，指個(gè)體基于自身意愿獨(dú)立行動(dòng)、作出自由選擇的能力。

8. romance： 歐洲封建社會(huì)里流行的一種傳奇文學(xué)，最有名的是中世紀(jì)的騎士系列，后指長篇英雄故事。

9. destitute： 赤貧的，一無所有的；austere：（人）嚴(yán)厲的，（生活）清苦的。此處結(jié)合《簡·愛》的情節(jié)，應(yīng)取兩者結(jié)合之意。

10. Enlightenment： 啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)，是發(fā)生在17-18世紀(jì)歐洲的一場反封建、反教會(huì)的思想文化解放運(yùn)動(dòng)，它為歐洲資產(chǎn)階級革命做了思想準(zhǔn)備和輿論宣傳；Rene Descartes： 勒內(nèi)·笛卡爾（1596—1650），法國著名哲學(xué)家、數(shù)學(xué)家、物理學(xué)家，被認(rèn)為是解析幾何之父和西方現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)思想的奠基人。

11. Frances Burney： 弗朗西斯·伯尼（1752—1840），英國女小說家，代表作為小說《伊芙琳娜》；Daniel Defoe： 丹尼爾·笛福（1660—1731），英國作家，英國啟蒙時(shí)期現(xiàn)實(shí)主義小說的奠基人，代表作為《魯濱遜漂流記》；Samuel Richardson： 塞繆爾·理查遜（1689—1761），英國著名小說家、保守派作家，代表作有《克拉麗莎》、《帕米拉》等，作品多關(guān)注婚姻道德問題；Mary Shelley： 瑪麗·雪萊（1797—1851），英國小說家，詩人雪萊的繼室，因1818年創(chuàng)作了文學(xué)史上第一部科幻小說《弗蘭肯斯坦》而被譽(yù)為科幻小說之母。

12. contrivance： 人為的修飾，構(gòu)思；episodic： 有許多片斷的。

13. gender-neutral： 中性的，因當(dāng)時(shí)女性作家遭到歧視，故勃朗特姐妹使用看不出性別的化名，比如夏洛蒂·勃朗特化名為柯勒·貝爾；pseudonym： 假名，筆名。

14. testimony： 證據(jù)，證明；Virginia Woolf：弗吉尼亞·伍爾芙（1882—1941），英國女作家，意識(shí)流文學(xué)代表人物，被譽(yù)為20世紀(jì)現(xiàn)代主義與女性主義的先鋒，代表作有《達(dá)洛維夫人》、《到燈塔去》等。

15. stifle： 壓抑，控制；antiquated： 老舊的；parsonage： 教區(qū)牧師寓所；moor：荒野。

16. untamed： 未經(jīng)馴服的，野性的；ferocity： 兇猛，殘暴。

17. heathen： 不信教的。

18. late： 已故的，新近去世的。

19. nihilism： 虛無主義，即認(rèn)為一切沒有意義，否定真理的存在；weather： v. 經(jīng)受住，克服。

20. diametrically： 截然相反地。

21. elate： 使高興，使得意；magnify： 推崇，吹捧。

22. jargon： 術(shù)語，行話。