However, by the end of the first act we get a taste of Nora’s first act of ‘rebellion’. During her conversation with Kristina Linde, she confesses that she borrowed the money for Nora and Torvald’s trip to Italy. This does not seem that serious a crime to us; however Mrs. Linde accurately describes why it is so serious when she bluntly states that Nora could not have borrowed the money, as “a wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent.” Nora clearly acted without her husband’s consent, as Torvald had clearly told Nora earlier in the act that “There’s something constrained, something ugly even, about a home that’s founded on borrowing and debt.” The irony does not end there, as Torvald, with reference to Krogstad and his act of forging a signature, says to Nora that “because an atmosphere of lies like that infects and poisons the whole life of a home. In a house like that, every breath that the children take is filled with the germs of evil…nearly all young men who go to the bad have had lying mothers.” Nora’s naivety does not allow her to adequately comprehend the severity of the situation. She argues “Is it rash to save your husband’s life?” Her naivety and defiance of rules and in this case laws, led her to act in a way which saves her husband’s life, only to jeopardise her and her family’s reputation, something which is unacceptable to Torvald, and to society. In the words of Krogstad, “the law is not concerned with motives.” Nora’s actions but also her defying stance towards the law show that she can be labeled as a ‘rebel’.
However, Nora’s rebellious ideas and actions do not end there. The very end of the play is undoubtedly the climax of the story. Here, we see that Nora’s strive to prove herself, and to show that she is not useless, both to herself and to Torvald is something she has kept to herself all these years. Torvald’s explosion of rage when he reads Krogstad’s letter makes her understand that she will always be the same, naïve little ‘songbird’ to Torvald. She bluntly says to Torvald that “…you’ve never understood me. I’ve been dreadfully wronged, Torvald – first by Papa, and then by you.” Nora feels undermined throughout her whole life, and she has just realised this. Torvald’s accusations and his row with Nora is the final straw for her. She decides to abandon him, as well as the children, as she believes that she is not ‘experienced’ enough to raise them to be respectable people. Nora herself says that “…how am I fitted to bring up the children?” She also decides to leave so as to acquire the experience and knowledge she desires, saying that “I must think things out for myself and try to understand them.” Nora leaving the children is in itself a rebellious act, which is most definitely unacceptable to her society. Nora forfeits a stable household and a comfortable living for her own happiness. She knew that she would most certainly be labeled as either selfish or cruel by denying her children of their mother, and going off to pursue her own happiness and fulfillment. At this particular time Nora leaving her husband and children would be utterly unacceptable to society. Indeed, this particular ending for the play was banned in Germany and Ibsen was forced to write a different version in which Nora does not abandon Torvald and the children. This shows the extremity of Nora’s actions and it is these actions which earn her the title of ‘rebel’.
However, Medea also carries out rebellious acts which set her against the society of ancient Greece. Medea has committed a great number of rebellious acts. These range from Medea killing her brother so as to allow Jason and the Argonauts to escape Colchis, to helping Pelias’ daughters kill him when the Argonauts reach Pelias’ lands. This shows that even before the play has begun Medea is no stranger to crimes and rebelling against the unwritten laws and stereotypes. The play begins from the moment Medea has found out about Jason’s infidelity. We find Medea almost in a trance, so astounded by her husband’s betrayal that she “speaks to herself alone, and wails aloud for her dear father, her own land and home, which she betrayed and left, to come here with this man who now spurns and insults her.”
Furthermore, Medea’s revenge on Jason is shown during the play, with Medea sending a poisoned dress to Glauce, killing her and her father who tried to save her. She also murders her two sons, knowing that any son is a father’s pride, and succeeds in depriving Jason of his loved one, his sons and any claim he had to the throne of Corinth. She adds insult to injury when she denies Jason his right to bury his children when he asks this of her. These acts appear nothing less than cruel and brutal, and are certainly rebellious acts. Jason condemns Medea for murdering their children “out of mere sexual jealousy.” Jason’s accusations appear more logical to us in the contexts of today’s society, and Medea appears to be a cold-blooded murderer as well as a rebel. However, an interesting concept emerges here. Medea, being a deity (she was the granddaughter of the god of the Sun, Helios) is able to escape any sort of penalty for her crimes. Euripides accepts Medea’s rebellion by allowing her to escape and not face any retaliatory measures. The chorus too accepts Medea’s rebellion, as they do not condemn her actions, but says that “Many are the Fates which Zeus in Olympus dispenses; Many matters the gods bring to surprising ends. The things we thought would not happen; The unexpected God makes possible; And such is the conclusion of this story.” This implies that what happened was simply the fate chosen for Jason and Medea. Unlike Nora in ‘A Doll’s House’, Medea escapes free of any conviction. However, this fact does not lead us to view her acts as not being rebellious. Medea murders her children to get revenge on Jason, and then very bitterly refuses to allow him to bury his own children. This is an act which contradicts all of the ancient customs and what they would consider as being ‘right’. Thus, Medea, like Nora, can be characterised as a ‘rebel’.
To conclude, Nora’s strive for recognition and credit in her own eyes leads her to acts which go against the normal situations in her society. Medea’s lust for vengeance, combined with her absolute resolution, also lead her down this rebellious path, thus showing that in both cases, the struggle for happiness and peace of heart and mind does not follow the rules and restraints of each society.
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 149
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 151
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 160
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 149
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 179
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 160
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 175
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 225
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 226
Ibsen, A Doll’s House, p. 228