Bombal’s “The Shrouded Woman” presents a complex perspective on love. Written from the perspective of a deceased woman, Ana María takes on a variety of roles to unfold her memories and complicated relationships around her. Being a wife whose marriage is disastrous and lifeless, a mother whose children all encounter troubles of their own, and a selfish lover who manipulates Fernando, I find Bombal’s depiction of Ana María captivating. In particular, I like how Bombal parallelizes Ana María to Ricardo while Ana Maria is in an affair with Fernando. In both cases, Ana Maria and Fernando’s unrequited love are vivid. It is interesting to see the transition from Ana María’s despair owing to Ricardo’s abandonment to her selfishness, allowing Fernando to pursue her. Having gone through abandonment, I wonder if Ana María’s behaviour here reflects her inclination to elevate her self-worth about men.

Bombal’s peaceful portrayal of death highlights the transcendence of the soul. She writes, “But now, now that I am dead, it occurs to me that possibly all men once in their lifetime long to make some great reunifications…” (166), and “The woman in the shroud did not feel the slightest desire to rise again. Alone, she would at last be able to rest, to die…” (259). It seems to me an epiphany occurs within Ana María in the sense that her death brings about insights that she would never have gained when she was alive. Having re-figured the fragments of memories in her life, she ultimately embraces death and liberates herself from the chaos, sorrow, and resentment in her lifetime. I find this amazing because she rejects the binary concepts of life/death, and implies that her life is not complete without the said mental process.

I like how the relationship between Ricardo and Ana María makes multiple references to nature. Physical intimacy between them, such as arms touching and Ana María’s cheeks pressing against Ricardo’s chest, took place in nature. I think the plainness of nature here connects to Ana María’s emotional nakedness to Ricardo. Ana María shows her side of fragility when she begs Ricardo not to leave her, and her physical submission to Ricardo. I find this connection very beautiful and vivid since it enables readers to experience her infatuation with Ricardo through readers’ senses.

I also noticed how Bombal contrasts Ana María’s relationship with Fernando with Antonio’s relationship with Sophia. The moral lines become complicated to me; Ana María retains the reputation of being a “loyal” wife since Fernando never kissed her; on the other hand, Antonio was seen kissing Sophia. Their unfulfilling marriage, marked by jealousy and suspicion, connects with Antonio’s indifference toward his infidelity. He says, “For a few kisses I took from her (Sophia), she is now treated like nothing at all and you even ignore the great affection she had for you” (245). I see Antonio’s behaviour as a sign of vengeance, alluding to patriarchy. Ricardo’s presence in Ana María’s life humiliates Antonio and is perceived as a threat to his manliness. His desire to re-assert control over his wife displays his insecurity. Women also develop emotional dependence on men; their sense of identity derives from their husband’s affection and attention. Bombal writes, “Indeed, as a woman, she understands Silvia’s frenzy, her desire to measure herself against Maria Griselda” (189). Alberto also says, “There is always something that escapes out of everything… It’s just like Maria Griselda! As soon as she moves, I feel her already distant…” (198). Lateral oppression among women owing to insecurity shows how they yearn for their husbands’ affection to reinforce their self-confidence. At the same time, patriarchy indoctrinates men into thinking that they must look dominant; possessing their wives is seen as a symbol of success and manliness. In this case, I think patriarchy oppresses both women and men.

My question is: What roles do religion and gender play in depicting the miseries of male and female characters in “The Shrouded Woman?”