Staff Writer
In nineteenth century Europe, there were gender roles that defined the daily life of a middle-class family. Wives were expected to prioritize their children and domestic chores, while leaving all financial decisions to their husbands. These prevailing cultural attitudes were caused by the desire to maintain a good reputation in order to receive a community’s respect. However: the maintenance of a good reputation can be used interchangeably with the idea of creating a facade of happiness and normality due to egoistical motivation. This can be seen in the play, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, which takes place in an unnamed city in Norway at the home of the Helmers during Christmas time. The theme of deceit is portrayed through the genial facade that Nora Helmer devised, which highlights the superficiality surrounding the Helmers’ lives. This is achieved through the use of dramatic irony, diminutive language, and foreshadowing.
As the play opens it is clear that due to Nora’s dishonesty, there is a conspicuous imbalance in power in the Helmers’ marriage. Torvald Helmer exercises authority over the actions of Nora, including seemingly trivial details, such as the macaroons he forbids her from consuming. The patriarchal nature of Torvald is revealed through Dr. Rank, a physician who regularly visits the home of the Helmers, who is a foil to Torvald. While Dr. Rank treats Nora as a mature individual as shown through his serious discussion of the moral corruption of Krogstad, an employee working at Torvald’s bank who committed forgery, Torvald treats Nora like a child. This can be seen through the diminutive terms that Torvald uses to address Nora, such as “little squirrel” (p 2) and “little skylark” (p 2). Moreover, Ibsen also employs dramatic irony to portray Torvald’s overbearing personality when Dr. Rank discovers Nora’s hidden macaroons saying, “What, macaroons? I thought they were forbidden here” (p 16). This is ironic, because Nora had earlier lied to Torvald by claiming that she did not eat any sweets when Torvald asked her, “Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two?” (p 4). This line also serves to foreshadow Nora’s departure from Torvald in the end, as the macaroons symbolizes Nora’s rebellion against her childlike role, which builds up dramatic tension.
Torvald’s parent-like attitude is further highlighted through dramatic irony when he chides her saying, “It’s a sweet little spendthrift, but she [Nora] uses up a deal of money. One would hardly believe how expensive such little persons are” (p 4). This is ironic as it implies Torvald’s belief in Nora’s inability to take responsibility over her finances, when actually she was the one who illegally obtained the money from Krogstad through forging her father’s signature to pay back the money spent on Torvald’s medical treatment. This revelation is evident in the dialogue between Nora and her childhood friend, Ms. Linde, when Nora explains, “Papa didn’t give us a shilling. It was I who procured the money” (p 11). This line contains Ibsen’s retrospective technique to employ social realism, as Nora’s deception forces her to play the role of a clueless housewife to avoid arousing Torvald’s suspicion. Moreover, the short syntax of this line expresses Nora’s frustration at Ms. Linde’s assumption that she is immature, and her pride in saving her husband’s life. It also highlights the striking contrast between Nora’s subservient act shown through the diminutive terms Torvald uses to address her, such as “little lark” (p 1) and “little squirrel” (p 11), and her strong-willed, independent self who persevered to save money to pay in order “…to be able to be free from care” (p 13), which shows that the Helmers’ marriage is permeated with superficiality.
It is clear that the conspicuous difference in moral values between Nora and Torvald act as an impediment to complete honesty in the marriage. Torvald’s belief that Krogstad’s forgery creates “…an atmosphere of lies [which] infects the poisons the whole life of a home” (p 27) unknowingly opposes Nora’s belief that her deception should be justified as it was a selfless act done out of love for Torvald, as shown when she questions Krogstad, “Is a wife not to be allowed to spare her husband’s life?” (p 24). Although the demeaning words “infects” (p 27) and “poison” (p 27) refers to the actions of Krogstad, it confirms that despite Nora’s good intentions behind the act of forgery, Torvald would not fulfill Nora’s hope of sacrificing his honor to accept her deception, highlighting the shallow nature of Torvald. Furthermore, Nora’s awareness of Torvald’s belief that a mother’s deception would lead to decadent children is revealed when Torvald says, “Almost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother” (p 27). This line portrays Torvald’s belief in biological determinism, as he thinks that a child’s moral values are inherited from the mother. Therefore, it is implied through Torvald’s high regard for status and belief in biological determinism that he would condemn Nora if he discovered her “crimes”, which shows the absence of unconditional love in the Helmers’ marriage.
Torvald’s comment on how Krogstad’s forgery would negatively impact the dynamics of his family illustrates his strong belief that dishonesty would plague the dignity of a household. This is another instance of dramatic irony, as Torvald is condemning Krogstad’s past crime of forgery, while inadvertently criticizing Nora who also committed the same crime. Moreover, it also reveals the extent of Torvald’s ignorance, as he does not suspect that Nora is creating an “atmosphere of lies” (p 27) nor exposing the household to “the germs of evil” (p 27). Simultaneously, Torvald’s view that Krogstad would always have to “…wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him” (p 27) draws a parallel to Nora’s situation in which there is a contrast between her obedient behavior towards Torvald and the forgery she committed. The word “mask” (p 27) serves to emphasize Torvald’s high regard for status, which highlights his shallow nature. Towards the end, it is evident that Nora is unable to cope with this double life as it becomes clear that Nora’s deception is due to her restricted freedom generated by Torvald’s unrealistic ideal of a perfect wife who is completely dependent on her husband.
This connects to the nursemaid’s story that she had to give up her child due to the absence of support from the child’s father and justifies it explaining, “A poor girl who has got into trouble should be glad to” (p 30). Both Nora and the nursemaid had to act in a way that they would not have opted to if they had a choice, as the infantilizing words “poor girl” (p 30) emphasizes women’s powerless position in the society which inhibits them from being independent from men. The line also portrays realism, as Nora represents the ordinary housewife in nineteenth-century Norway who is suppressed by a social standard that restricts women to domestic chores. Ibsen thus extends this idea by depicting a letter written by Krogstad to symbolize both deception and superficiality, since it reveals Nora’s secret debt thus jeopardizing the Helmers’ marriage. Moreover, the letter is what caused Nora’s epiphany that Torvald had always prioritized societal value and his dominance over her, which further illuminates Torvald’s shallow nature. This is evident when Torvald discovers the letter and calls Nora “a criminal” (p 62) and attributes blame to her father, which is quickly followed by his statement that they should continue to act normally “…but naturally only in the eyes of the world” (p 63) to portray their marriage to outsiders as a happy one. Torvald’s reaction to the truth of Nora’s forgery suggests that although he believes that their relationship is ruined, he will not allow her to escape the marriage to regain her independence, thus effectively portraying the marriage as a superficial one that is purely based on status reasons.
In conclusion, A Doll’s House explores the theme of deceit by describing the double life Nora leads in which she is pretends to be a dutiful, honest wife to Torvald, while handling with a secret debt. Nora’s deceit indirectly reveals the shallowness of Torvald’s nature, as he fails to associate the fraud as a selfless act on Nora’s part to save his life. Instead of expressing unconditional love, Torvald reveals his egoistical nature by proving that he is willing to maintain a superficial image of a happy marriage with Nora after learning of her deceit, despite his emphatic views on forgery regarding Krogstad’s past. This causes Nora to communicate to Torvald, “You have never loved me. You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me” (p 66). Through these words, Nora is established as the “doll” in the family whose only role was to please the wishes of her husband without knowing her own self worth. This play is concluded with Nora leaving Torvald, showing that her own deception incidentally caused her to be disillusioned with her role as a “doll” in her superficial marriage.