Imagined Human Beings - Bernard Jay Paris

Скачать книгу

little bird must never do that again! A song-bird must sing clear and true! No false notes! (Puts arm around her) Isn’t that the way it should be? Of course it is! (Let’s her go) And now we’ll say no more about it” (act 1). Torvald now believes that Nora has inherited her father’s lack of principle; she has “no religion, no moral code, no sense of duty” (act 3). She embodies everything Torvald abhors in other people and is afraid of in himself.

      Torvald can be easily seen as a coward and hypocrite, but the situation is more complicated than that. He had made a show of courage as long as his conduct was unimpeachable, but Nora’s behavior has compromised his honor and undermined his belief in his power to control his destiny. Horney observes that for the perfectionistic person the appearance of rectitude may be more important than rectitude itself, and appearances are very important to Torvald. The “matter must be hushed up at any cost” in order to avoid a scandal, and he and Nora must pretend to have a marriage in order to “save appearances” (act 3). Nora’s dream was that Torvald would take the responsibility for the forgery on himself, thus showing how much he loved her, but given his own defenses, this is something that Torvald could never do. She is asking him to present his despised image to the world as his true reality. When Torvald says that “one doesn’t sacrifice one’s honor for love’s sake,” Nora replies that “millions of women have done so.” She is expressing values that belong to her defense system and he values that belong to his.

      Krogstad’s letter plunges Torvald into a state of psychological crisis. His solution has failed and his “whole world seem[s] to be tumbling about [his] ears” (act 3). He is going to pieces not only because Nora has exposed him to disgrace, but also because his misfortune forces him to realize that he has violated his own principles. His code is that one should not sacrifice honor for love, but that is what he did when he was sent to investigate Nora’s father and engaged in a cover-up for her sake: “If you hadn’t . . . been so kind and helpful—he might have been dismissed” (act 2). Torvald now feels that he is being punished “for shielding” Nora’s father (act 3). By failing to live up to his shoulds, he has exposed himself to catastrophe. This generates a sense of helplessness and panic and also a great deal of self-hate, which he externalizes by feeling victimized and blaming his wife. Like Nora, he feels unjustly treated by his mate: “And to think I have you to thank for all this—you whom I’ve done nothing but pamper and spoil since the day of our marriage” (act 3). As we have seen, Nora is also feeling self-hate, which she externalizes by blaming her father and Torvald.

      Torvald’s panic subsides when Krogstad withdraws his threat, and he immediately resumes his patronizing behavior. After forgiving Nora, he assures her that she is safe and that he will cherish her as if she were “a little dove” he had “rescued from the claws of some dreadful hawk” (act 3). Despite his craven behavior, Torvald wants to revive the old scenario in which he is Nora’s protector, but she no longer believes him. He becomes even more paternalistic than he was before. Nora will become his child as well as his wife, and he will be “both will and conscience” to her.

      Torvald’s behavior is incredibly inappropriate, and it may seem to some that Ibsen is presenting a caricature of a chauvinistic male. It is understandable, however, in terms of Torvald’s psychology. He is a male chauvinist, of course (“I am not a man for nothing”), but there is more to his behavior than that. His description of Nora as his “dearest treasure” is not an exaggeration (act 3). He is an emotionally needy man who, spellbound by Nora, wants to possess her entirely and live in a world of their own. When they are with other people, he romantically pretends that they love each other in secret, and he thinks that Rank’s death may be for the best, since now they will be “more than ever dependent on each other.” He is proud of Nora’s beauty and charm, which bolster his own sense of worth, much as Torvald’s success feeds Nora’s pride. He has blinded himself to anything faulty in Nora because he does not want to relinquish his idealization of her or to have any flaw in their relationship.

      There is an inner conflict in Torvald between his dependency on Nora and his perfectionism. He tries to resolve that conflict by treating her like a helpless, uncomprehending female who was not “able to judge how wrong” her behavior was (act 3). If he continued to condemn Nora, he would lose her. By regarding her as too immature to be held responsible, he is able to forgive her and continue their relationship. He will keep Nora straight, and thus protect himself, by being her will and conscience. He envisions merging with Nora more completely than ever before.

      Torvald’s fantasy is profoundly oppressive to Nora, who no longer respects his judgment. When he starts regarding her as his little doll again, “whom you would have to guard more carefully than ever, because she was so weak and frail” (act 3), she realizes the degree to which she has been infantilized and demands to be treated like a real person. This does not produce a sudden leap into maturity for Nora, nor could it. She herself is conscious of her inadequacy and uncertainty. She knows that she is not fit to teach her children, that she does not understand society or religion, and that she is bewildered about ethical questions. What she is clear about is that she is not clear. She knows that she is out of touch with herself and the world and that she must get away from Torvald if she is to “learn to face reality.” She is aware that she is at the beginning of a long process and that she does not “know what sort of person” she will become.

      I have suggested that if Nora continued to grow, there might be a chance for her marriage. That would depend on Torvald as well, but he, too, has begun to change and may have as good a chance as she of arriving at the necessary insights. He does not accept Nora’s position that he should have sacrificed honor for love, nor, given his personality, is he ever likely to do so. Nora needs to see the sources of that expectation in her own psychology. Torvald does respond, however, to Nora’s indignation at not having been treated as a person. He understands that there is “a great void” between them and asks Nora to believe that he is capable of change. She thinks that he might be when he “no longer [has his] doll to play with” (act 3). Again she is right. The separation is as essential for Torvald as it is for her. Nora appears to be somewhat vindictive when she says that his inability to endure the thought of parting with her is all the more reason why she should go, but perhaps she recognizes that she must be cruel in order to be kind.

      The question we are left with at the end of the play is whether Nora and Torvald can change enough so that their “life together might truly be a marriage” (act 3). Unless this happens, says Nora, they will always be strangers. If it were to happen it would be “the most wonderful thing of all,” but Nora says that she “no longer believe[s] in miracles.” Torvald, however, clings to this hope. The last line of the play is his: “The most wonderful thing of all—?” Given the severity of Nora and Torvald’s problems and the absence of therapeutic help, it would be a miracle indeed.

      Hedda Gabler is above all a study of character; to comprehend the play, we must understand Hedda. It is difficult to establish Ibsen’s thematic intentions, but he shows with brilliant psychological insight how Hedda’s plight as a woman in an extremely restrictive society produces inner conflicts that make her life sterile and lead to her destructive behavior. Hedda is not portrayed sympathetically, like Nora, but psychological analysis reveals that beneath her cold, haughty demeanor she is a suffering human being.

      As in A Doll’s House, the heroine’s relationship with a man is the focus of the play. Hedda’s most important relationship is not with her husband but with Ejlert Lövborg, whom she had known before her marriage. After the scene is set in act 1, the dramatic action is initiated by Thea Elvsted’s visit, which leads to Lövborg’s reentry into Hedda’s life. Act 2 is focused on Hedda’s rivalry with Thea, as she induces Ejlert to take a drink and go to Judge Brack’s party. Act 3 shows us her disappointment when Ejlert fails to enact the scenario she had envisaged for him, and it ends with Hedda urging him to kill himself beautifully and burning his manuscript. In act 4, Hedda is driven to suicide when all her solutions collapse after Ejlert’s death. If we are to appreciate the subtlety of Ibsen’s psychological portrait and make sense of what happens in the play, we must understand Ejlert’s role in Hedda’s life.

      The most widely held view of Hedda’s behavior in act 2 is that she is trying to undo Thea’s constructive influence

Скачать книгу