Ambiguity in Clarissa Dalloway and Henry - Essay Example

Ambiguity in Clarissa Dalloway and Henry Introduction Virginia Woolf’s Clarissa Dalloway the protagonist in Mrs. Dalloway is presented as a conflicted, yet resolved in much the same way as Henry, the protagonist in Shakespeare’s Henry V. Woolf and Shakespeare’s protagonist are crafted as strong willed characters placed in an ascribed role, roles that run counter to their innermost desires. Despite this duality both Clarissa and Henry are determined to comply with that which society expects of them in their ascribed roles. The ambiguity of Shakespeare’s Henry arises out his role as fearless King contrasted against his strong sense of justice and Christian virtues. Henry V approaches this juxtaposition in a period set some time around the late 16th, early 17th century. (Margolf, 1995, 946-948) Clarissa’s ambiguity is characterized by Clarissa’s standing as a member of the upper crust society together with her sense of duty and her contrasting inner thoughts and desires. Mrs. Dalloway is set in a period which follows the First World War in England. Henry V Shakespeare’s Henry V is presented as the ideal king and despite the fact that he might have inherited the crown by illicit means, Henry is determined to represent it well without offending Christianity. Just before battle he demonstrates his Christianity as well as his commitment to the title bestowed upon him and prays: “Not to-day, O Lord, O, not to-day, think not upon the fault My father made in compassing the crown.” (Shakespeare, 2003, Act IV, Scene, 1, 310-312) Shakespeare constructs each scene around development of Henry’s character. As the play progresses the reader gradually becomes acquainted with a multifaceted persona. For instance as noted in the excerpt above, Henry’s religious nature is depicted. In other scenes, Henry is presented as endowed with compassion and mercy. He is also portrayed as a young man of keen administrative knowledge, a skilful warrior, a man of nobility, an incurable romantic and able to communicate with all walks of life. (Cahn, 1991, 489) Implicit in the cumulative impact of these character traits is a dual character. One who is a ruthless yet compassionate leader. More importantly, as Victor Cahn explains, Shakespeare is careful in ensuring that Henry comes across as “a man who fights only for legitimate causes.” (Cahn, 1991, 489) Shakespeare’s prologue introduces the reader to Henry as “the warlike Harry” (Shakespeare, Henry V, 2003, Prologue, 5) Despite this characterisation, Shakespeare follows with an entirely opposing characterization in the Chorus by describing Henry as the “mirror of all Christian kings.” (Shakespeare, 2003, Chorus 6) It is this kind of inconsistency that lends itself to Henry’s ambiguity. However, in the context of the times in which Henry V is placed a king’s conquest defined him and cemented his place as a good and successful monarch. (Humphreys, 1994, 681) Shakespeare is attempting to portray Henry as a monarch who goes to war for noble and just causes therefore bestowing upon him the characteristic of a Christian monarch, or a just warrior rather than a ruthless warrior guided solely by greed. On the other extreme, Shakespeare’s Henry is positioned to convey to the audience through his duality that: “...the guilt of bloodshed lies on the French for resisting his claim on not on him for prosecuting it.” (Humphreys, 1994, 676) Although Henry is a warrior, his decisions to go to battle are entirely the fault of those against whom he wages war. In this way, Shakespeare unveils Henry’s ambiguity. Early on the reader is assured that Henry consults with the Bishop of Canterbury and ensure that England has the locus standi to go to war against France. In the First Act, Scene 2 Henry asks of the Bishop to: “...justly and religiously unfold, Why the Law Salic that they have in France, Or should or should not bar us in our claim...” (Shakespeare, 2003, Act 1, Scene 2, 12-14) There is no doubt that Henry is seeking a “public statement of the justice of his cause.”(Traversi, 1997, 169) Shakespeare’s Henry is endowed with a great sense of justice and will not go to war unless it is not only justified but proper. In seeking justification Henry wants the truth from the Bishop he does not want the truth twisted so as to comport with Henry’s plan to go to war. He implores the Bishop: “God forbid, my dear and faithful lord, That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading, Or nicely change your understanding soul, With opening titles miscreate, whose, whose right, Suits not in native colors with the truth.” (Shakespeare, 2003, Act 1, Scene 2, 15-20) Just as Henry is able to communicate freely and eloquently with the Bishop and his peers, Henry has the uncanny ability to step below the facade of monarchy and communicate with his lowly soldiers. He presents himself as their equal and this is yet another aspect of Henry’s ambiguity. A monarch whose superiority is unmatched by his earthly companions, yet he is able to transcend that station and amalgamate himself with his servant soldiers. In a dramatic speech to his soldiers in preparation for war, Henry tells them: “We few, we happy few we band of brothers, For he today that sheds his blood with shall be my brother.”(Shakespeare, 2003, Act 2, Scene 1, 60-62) In this passage Henry closes the gap between him and his soldiers declaring that he and his soldiers are one and equal in their joint cause. The word “brothers” is the most powerful indicator of unity and equity. In closing the gap between master and servant, Henry is able to reach his soldiers and passively impose his will upon them. Traversi notes that: “...the king’s right to command obedience is never in question...Henry’s soldiers, in spite of their pessimistic views of the military situation, accept them without reserve.” (Traversi, 1997, 187) Henry’s ambiguity and complexity is revealed in the typical Shakespeare tradition through speech and dialogue. Mrs. Dalloway Mrs. Dalloway much like Henry starts off by paying homage to their current station in life. As seen earlier, Henry questions but accepts this questionable ascension to the British Crown. Mrs. Dalloway, accepts her marriage to Richard Dalloway and wonders about her decision not to marry Peter Walsh. Like Henry she is accepting of her choice. Reflecting fondly on Peter and wondering what it would be like to be married to him Clarissa resolves: “...still making out that she had been right-and she had too-not to marry him. For in marriage a little licence, a little independence there must be between people living together day in and day out in the same house; which Richard gave her and she him...But with Peter everything had to be shared; everything gone into.” (Woolf, 2005, 7-8) Woolf’s approach to developing Clarissa’s character is by virtue of a stream of conscienousness. This approach is accomplished by interior monologue unlike Shakespeare’s dialogue through speeches and conversations. Clarissa spends much of the day preparing for an evening party and reflecting on the past. In doing so the reader comes to the inescapable conclusion that although Clarissa loved Peter Walsh, she traded her love for him for marriage to a man who was less enigmatic if at all and would allow her a measure of independence through the auspices of privacy. Privacy was obviously very important to Clarissa. It was her way of keeping one part of herself entirely hers and prevented her giving of herself completely to her husband. To her way of thinking, had she married Peter Walsh she would have had to share an intimacy with him that goes beyond sexuality. It would have entailed a baring of souls, something was not prepared to do. With Richard she could contain her secret thoughts and serve as the proper wife and hostess for her husband, a role ascribed to her and one that she like Henry desired to fulfil properly and justly. Like Henry Clarissa adjusts to the situation and the persons with whom she interacts. It is in this way that both Shakespeare and Woolf portray each of their protagonist’s ambiguity. As demonstrated, Henry looks to the Bishop for guidance and validation of his battle plans, and while he leads his soldiers into war he can communicate on their level. Likewise, Clarissa relates differently to other characters in Mrs. Dalloway in a manner reflective of her communication skills. As Blanche Gelfant explains that Clarissa sees her face in the mirror early in the novel and recognizes it as an image which: “Represents a unified and static self, the person she can produce whenever she needs a recognizable social mask. But she knows that her social image conceals incompatible aspects of her personality which could be refracted into divergent and contradictory images. Each of the other characters sees only one of these incompatible aspects and takes this to be her total personality.”(Bloom, 1990, 86) Obviously the intimacy of a shared relationship with Peter Walsh would have circumvented Clarissa’s ability to adapt to such an ambiguous persona. He, Walsh would have known the entire Clarissa something she aspired to keep to herself and only allow others to know that part of herself that she wished them to know or see. Henry on the other hand showed a different persona to his soldiers in that he presented himself as the fearless, brave leader on the battle front. Yet to the Bishop and his peers he presented himself as a man conscious of justice and propriety. Like Henry, Clarissa is also defined by her station in life and this lends itself to the elements of ambiguity throughout both literary works. As previously noted, Henry is a monarch who inherited his crown and although he might have been predisposed to live a different life he too accepts his legacy and comports with it, struggling to reconcile the role of fearless, ruthless monarch with his grave sense of equity and justice. Clarissa inherits her role in society by virtue of wealth and class. It is in this world that Clarissa must comply with despite her own limitations and own inner self-image. John Hessler writes of Clarissa: “For Clarissa Dalloway...the world has shrunk and become brittle; she senses confinement and impasse...” (Bloom, 1990, 126) Conclusion Although Clarissa is compartmentalizing her personality she is committed to fulfilling her role as depicted in her grand and meticulous preparations for her evening party. A similar trait is seen throughout Henry V with Henry’s meticulous commitment to planning his battles. Although conflicted by their roles each protagonist finds a way to reconcile their inner conflicts with the role ascribed to them through inheritance. Henry strives to reconcile his fearless leader station with his great sense of justice. Clarissa tries to reconcile her inner fears of intimacy and desire for independence with her role as the perfect wife and hostess, a role ascribed to her by the dictates of an hierarchal society. Bibliography Bloom, Harold.(ed) Clarissa Dalloway. Chelsea House, 1990 Cahn, Victor. Shakespeare the Playwright: A Companion to the Complete Tragedies, Histories, Comedies, and Romances. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. Humphreys, A.R. (ed) Henry V in William Shakespeare, Four Histories. New York: Penguin Books, 1994. Margolf, Diane. “Review: Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws: Perspectives on the Law of War in the Later Middle Ages, by Theodor Meron.” Speculum, Vol. 70, No. 4. Oct. 1995, 946-948 Shakespeare, William. Henry V. Dover Publications, 2003. Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare From Richard II to Henry V. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997 Woolf, Virginia. Mrs. Dalloway. Harvest Books, 2005. Read More