How
Ibsen deals with the question of marriage in A Doll’s House
The immediate stage success of Ibsen’s A Doll’s
House, indicates that contemporary audiences recognized an accurate depiction
of a conventional nineteenth century marriage.
Public demand in Germany, however, soon afterwards forced Ibsen to
supply an alternative ending to his play, because the contemporary wife did
not, or should not, slam the door on her husband and children. To be shown to do so was to undermine the
sacred institution of marriage, and of this intention, Ibsen was widely
accused.
His strong defence of his original ending is therefore
indicative of his attitude to marriage and his opinions on the necessary
components of a successful union. If the
vital ingredients are not carefully measured and willingly contributed, then
the marriage will fail and, unless some radical reappraisal takes place, the
matrimonial home will be little more than a legal torture chamber.
In his depiction of the Helmer marriage, Ibsen shows
his recognition that a woman’s contribution to marriage is essentially
different from—but nevertheless equal to—that of a man. As individuals, both have separate but equal
claims to happiness and fulfilment.
There are faults on both sides in the Helmer
marriage, so severe that in eight years, husband and wife had not had one
serious conversation. Through her
conditioning, Nora has become a doll-like creature; a puppet performing for the
gratification of first her father and then her husband. She is a product and a victim of the
patriarchal society which views women as the property of father or husband and
judges them by men’s laws. Never having
been encouraged to cultivate her own opinions, Nora has been obliged to
suppress her natural instincts and thus lose sight of her individual self. Her confusion in explaining this to Torvald
is clear:
You arranged everything the way you wanted
it, so that I simply took over your taste in everything – or pretended I did –
I don’t really know – I think it was a little of both – first one and then the
other (Act 3).
But Nora was not unwilling to play the game by
Torvald’s rules; it was, after all, ‘fun’ and her small acts of childish
rebellion afforded her some secret delight; on top of which, this provided a
way of maintaining the peace.
Nora’s marriage is a microcosm of the patriarchal
society as a whole and having known nothing else, Nora has placed unquestioning
trust in the rightness of its laws.
Torvald’s paternalistic attitude and his idea of her being his
‘treasured possession’ has encouraged her frivolity and provided her with a
sense of security that is, however, dangerously false. It is a marriage based on deception and
therefore not an equal partnership. Since it is undoubtedly conventional, the
implication is that such deception in marriage is commonplace.
Both Nora and Torvald compensate for the void in
their marriage by indulging in fantasies or daydreams. Torvald inflames both his ego and his sexual
urges in the pretence that Nora is his ‘secret mistress’, his ‘clandestine
little sweetheart’, or his chaste new bride on her wedding night, while Nora
dreams of a ‘rich old gentleman’ falling in love with her and rescuing her from
her plight. In this way, they cocoon
themselves in their separate webs of deceit and fail to recognize the real
deficiencies in their marriage, and the needs of each partner. Nora deludes herself that her marriage is
perfect and Torvald feeds his false self-image, leaving mutual trust out of
reach.
It takes the perceptive Mrs Linde a very few visits
to recognize the problems and advocate a solution, while the devoted family
friend and daily visitor, Dr Rank, remains blissfully unsuspicious of the
undercurrents threatening this ‘happy, peaceful home’. This suggests that, left to themselves, Nora
and Torvald might continue their deceptions indefinitely and indeed that such
might be an acceptable approximation of happiness. But Nora’s secret is an awesome burden and
one she does not discount disclosing to Torvald at some vague future date ‘Years
from now, when I’m no longer pretty’ (Act 1).
This, however, only proves Nora’s basic misconceptions about the world,
and provides a sense of her hovering on the brink of realizing the truth. In whatever way Nora’s confrontation with
reality occurred, her awakening would be a shock, and once faced, her basic
nature would demand its assertion. It
would appear, therefore, that Ibsen is cynical not so much about marriage as
about the social conventions which inhibit individual development and encourage
delusion and duplicity.
It would appear that Nora is a creation ahead of her
time. Despite her ignorance of the
world, she is aware that society is not yet ready to accept her desertion of
her husband and children, ‘I know most people think as you do,’ she tells
Torvald in Act 3, but her need for personal development overrules all his
conventional objections, even if her quest is doomed before it is begun.
In the space of only three days of the Christmas
period, Nora undergoes almost a rite of passage that takes most women several
years. Few women can contemplate leaving
their children, but Nora does so not merely because the law dictates they are
the property of their father, but also in the belief that as an incomplete
person, she cannot supply their essential needs but, conversely, might corrupt
them.
In A Doll’s
House, Ibsen builds up a strong case against the existing laws of marriage
that allow a legal breeding ground for hypocrisy and bigotry. His release of Nora might well be viewed as
an act of charity. The playwright was
kind enough to allow his character at least the belief in her own courage to
face the challenge of the world outside her front door.
You can find the full text of A
Doll’s House available free online at:
No comments:
Post a Comment