Ibsen Contrasted With Antigone Essay, Research Paper

The drama of Ibsen was unusual for it’s time since the language that was used and the chaHI Eiracters it portrayed were very much of the real world. “A Doll’s House”, serves as an example of the kind of issue-based drama that distinguishes Ibsen from many of his contemporaries. The play’s dialogue is not poetic, but very naturalistic, and the characters are recognisable people. Given the sense of modernity which the play possesses it seems unusual to compare it to a Greek tragedy produced more than two-thousand years previously. On closer examination however, there are certain similarities between the way in which “A Doll’s House” is plotted and a tragedy such as Oedipus Rex, perhaps the most renowned of all the Greek plays. Both “Oedipus” and “A Dolls’ House” depict disastrous events which occur to two very different characters. At the start of Oedipus, we encounter a hero who is almost universally adored. Oedipus is a popular king who by the end of the play will be reduced to the lowest level possible. Classically the tragic hero began a piece as a man of high position since this made his demise all the more tragic. That the tragic centre if Ibsen’s play is both female and not particularly birth is a distinct departure from the classical condition of tragedy. Ibsen has moved many concepts of the genre and placed them in a domestic setting. In order to see the way Nora can be viewed as a true tragic heroine it is useful to examine some of the concepts which Greek tragedy frequently made use of. In both plays the trouble that befalls the lead characters are due to their own actions Oedipus commits a series of huge mistakes the significance of which are not really understood until it is too late. In “A Doll’s House”, Nora borrows a sum of money, an action that will tear her family apart. The idea that the tragedy of a play begins with a huge unintentional mistake is known as Hamartia: it is also noticeable that the mistakes, which condemn both Nora and Oedipus, are both virtuous. Oedipus flees from Corinth falsely believing that Polybus and Merope are his parents, he hopes that this will make the oracle’s prediction that he will murder his father and sleep with his mother impossible. This virtuous act is of course a massive error since it leads him to his real parentsIt is interesting to note that Nora only borrows money in “A Doll’s House” in an attempt to save the life of her sick husband. Her act of kindness misguided as it may be, is the catalyst for the events that follow. The way in which the actions of both Nora and Oedipus backfire in such a tragic way is an example of what in Greek literary tradition is known as Peripitia. This word translates as a “reversal” and to gain an understanding of the tragic condition it is important that the theme of reversal is examined. In Oedipus there are many examples of reversal, when actions have the exact opposite effect to that which were intended. When Oedipus sends for the shepherd whom he hopes will allay his fear, over his parentage, his arrival has the exact opposite effect. In this respect the tow plays are very similar they employ many of the same dramatic devices to achieve their goals. Reversal is key to both plays since by the end of both plays the social conditions of both Oedipus and Nora have changed completely. It is interesting to note that unlike a Shakespearean drama in which the tragic hero always dies, neither Oedipus nor Nora die. In many respects, the fate that awaits Oedipus is worse than death, he is condemned by his own edict and must be banished. Upon finding Iocaste’s body, he gouges his own eyes out before leaving the city forever. The fact the Oedipus chooses to punish himself by gouging his own eyes out is extremely important as the theme of blindness runs throughout both plays. In Oedipus, constant reference is made to sight and blindness. The wisest character in the play is Teiresias the “blind-seer” who tells Oedipus: “Listen to me. You mock my blindness do you? But I can say that you, with both your eyes are blind.” -Oedipus Rex Scene 1 Line 195/6 In the final scene of “A Doll’s House” just after Nora she’s told her husband that she is leaving him, Torveld says: “But your blind! You’ve no experience of the world

-”A Doll’s House Act 3″ The idea that though blind Oedipus can see more without eyes is connected to another concept which was born from the Greek tragic condition. The concept of “agnorisis” translates as “recognition”. It is only at the very end that Oedipus’ eyes are open not only to the facts of his parentage, but also to his own character. Oedipus’ search to find the killer of Laisis must inevitably end with the disclosure that he is the criminal. The fact that the audience knows this far before Oedipus adds to the dramatic irony that runs throughout the whole play. In this way Sophocles fills his work with speeches and deeds that will have terrible repercussions for the character. The revelation that Nora undergoes in the final scene of “A Doll’s House”, also sees her coming to understand her character more fully. The idea that a woman could leave her husband and children would have seemed shocking to the nineteenth century audience. I find this to be the power of the play. Ibsen uses the structure of a classical tragedy to explore issues that were taboo at the time such as divorce laws and venereal disease. I feel that a modern audience will be more likely to respond emotionally to Ibsen’s play. Whilst Ibsen has clearly quite intentionally based his play around the model of a Greek tragedy, the realistic almost mundane nature of “A Doll’s House” makes it a far more accessible work for modern viewers. “Oedipus Rex” is a play that fills the viewer with awe and pity, however I feel it is hard for us to understand the plight of the protagonists, as they seem to be at the mercy of strange gods. For this reason I feel that an abstract rendering of the play would have a more emotional impact than a production which was tied to images of antiquity. Another common aspect of the tragedy is that often, despite the often-brutal events of the play, the conclusion conveys a sense of hope for the future. In Shakespearean tragedy for instance, whilst the hero always dies, chaos is never allowed to prevail. Order is always restored, and the death of the hero serves as a lesson to those who have survived. In their own ways the conclusions of both “Oedipus Rex” and “A Doll’s House” are hopeful whilst it is hard to find any joy in the pathetic ruin that Oedipus has become, by the conclusion he has succeeded in attaining certain nobility in the self-knowledge he has gained. Hope is provided in the form of children who are placed under the protection of Creon and thus escape being tortured by their father’s sullied memory. Many would describe the conclusion of “A Doll’s House” as unhappy. The letter which has lain in the letterbox, tormenting both Nora and the audience is finally opened revealing the truth of her predicament to Nora’s husband. I find this conclusion however to be not only satisfying, but full of hope. It is only when Torveld knows the truth that Nora has the courage to leave her dollhouse prison and escape to an uncertain but freer future. In an alternative ending written for a German production Ibsen shows Nora failing to escape and staying with Torveld for the sake of their children. Whilst some have called this a “happier ending” I find it far more tragic than the clearly superior original ending. Here Nora remains a prisoner of a loveless marriage and the self-knowledge she has gained is useless. The naïve Nora of the first act is merely a memory by act 3, she has grown as an individual and no longer belongs to Torveld.The events of “A Doll’s House” clearly follow the pattern of a tragedy, an almost uncontrollable chain-reaction is set off by Nora’s error which will clearly lead to her destruction or the destruction of her way of life. I do not find the conclusion however, to be as tragic, rather it is refreshingly optimistic. It is clear that in the writing of “A Doll’s House” Ibsen has borrowed heavily from the Greek tragedies he has however added new depth to this genre by pacing the characters in such a recognisable situation. The mise-en-scene of the room which is Ibsen’s only set give the play a sense of claustrophobia which works very well. Sophocles play looks at the human condition in a far more expansive way. Ibsen on the other hand uses the genre to examine the motivations of the individual and the need for freedom. I feel his attempt to produce a modern tragedy is skilfully rendered and ultimately successful.