The Portrait of a Resignation

[Special thanks to Sam, who reintroduced this concept to me in Abernathy’s Russian Novels course]

           It has been supposed that Portrait's Isabel is justified in her deference to Osmond in Ch. 41-2 and in her somewhat ambiguous return to him at the novel’s conclusion because she finds her own moral/ethical convictions that allow her to retain her independence and humanity even while trapped in the confines of her adverse marital and social circumstances. As Will correctly mentioned, this falls under the branch of phenomenology, which enables Isabel to attain an authentic personal existence despite outsider opinions and Osmond’s disdain for her. However, I wonder if there is an alternative means of reading Isabel’s choices, perhaps in another existential perspective that says something contrary to James’ intention. Perhaps Isabel is not a maiden of individual victory, but a knight of infinite resignation.

           According to Kierkegaard, the Knight of Infinite Resignation is a type of person who, when in love with another person, finds it impossible to give up on that person because that person is the entire substance of his life and will never go back on the promise of devotion to that person despite the evidence that he should. He never contradicts himself or his love and willingly suffers all manner of pain and disgrace because he has merely reconciled that suffering is inescapable, making an ethical stance to stoically and humbly walk through the storms of life without resistance or hope for change. He will abandon peace and happiness dutifully for the sake of his love, which distinguishes him from the Knight of Faith that seeks justice and truth in his life no matter what the cost and exemplifies his own title of INFINITE (constant) RESIGNATION (compliance).

           Consider now the fate of Isabel in the second half of The Portrait of a Lady, wherein she has foolishly bound herself to a husband that has dedicated himself to extinguishing her personal freedoms for the sake of his own societal benefit and would marry his own daughter away for the same reasons or lock her up in a nunnery as the case may be. They are housed in Rome, an ancient city of timeless traditions and constraints, and wed in a social contract that would be grossly dishonorable to break, so divorce is out of the question and cruel defiance far from her nature, so what is he to do? Suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, that's what, which is not a choice as base as throwing her hands up in frustration and crying out futily into the uncaring night but not the same as internally deciding to find a new hope within herself that can give her the strength to not just make the most of her life but reclaim ownership of it. Instead, she resorts her to her pride and falls back on ethical obligation to her husband and stepdaughter, suffering great emotional distress but still following through with her role in society, despite her former wishes to the contrary. I now wonder if the important point is not whether she is a KoIR, but if she ever had any possibility of becoming anything greater within the framework of James' prose.