Heather Quelch
The Anglo European School
No. 0078
May 2002
Page 2/3
have something in reserve..” However, Nora’s safe little world is on the verge of collapse as Krogstag challenges her with her crime and the sure consequences she will face if he is not obeyed. And yet, even in the face of unpleasant blackmail Nora is sure in her stoic loyalty “… My husband will see for himself what a bad man you are, and then certainly won’t be able to keep your job.” Torvald’s role as the manly moraliser is still very much alive in Nora’s mind. However by the beginning of Act II with the admission by Torvald that he wishes to get rid of Krogstad not because he is morally incompetent but because he is ashamed to admit previous friendship to such a man, Nora begins to recognise that Torvald isn’t quite the honourable, respectable husband she fully believed him to be. Then ensues the scene between Dr. Rank and Nora (Note the underlying theme of infection being passed down to children, Nora the guilt ridden parent and Rank, the victim of venereal disease). Nora, fully realizing her predicament has the idea of turning to Rank for help, even here her loyalty to her husband is ever present, “You know how deeply… Torvald is in love with me. He would never hesitate for a moment to sacrifice his love for my sake”. When Rank then responds to this with his own declaration of love for Nora the mood changes dramatically, becoming brisk and even almost dismissive on Nora’s part; the concept of being unfaithful to Torvald hasn’t even entered her mind, even if it would be to her advantage. Nora’s loyalty continues, we are introduced to the fact that she has contemplated suicide in an attempt to stop Torvald from taking the inevitable blame. Furthermore, she believes, as she tells Kristine, that the “wonderful thing” will happen, the point where Torvald will discover the forgery and take all the guilt upon himself and so reveal the true depth of his love for Nora. With Act III comes the climax of the play and the revealing of the true nature of Torvald’s character. On discovering the truth instead of selflessly laying himself down for his wife, “You mustn’t try to save me, Torvald!” he turns on her “Miserable woman…what is this you have done.” He blames her for her depravity and finds horror in the fact that he will have to co exist with the same still, for a long period. Then, on the reception of his salvation, the IOU for krogstd, he “forgives” Nora begging her to forget her wrongs. At this point Nora realizes where she is, that their marriage is based on a lie that there is no love, that he husband is more concerned with his position in society that with the emotional needs of his wife. At this she chooses to leave her home and discover for herself the individuality and sense of identity which her life has denied her. Ultimately she shows a true form of loyalty, sacrificing a mothers bond, financial security, a social position and a spouse, to be loyal to herself, to give herself the opportunity to leave her unformed person behind and become one that is whole, rather than the object to be possessed and the play doll that she had previously been.
Ranyevskaya is the central main character in The Cherry Orchard; a character whose greatest floor is her inability to adapt to the changing society in which she finds herself living. She is an aristocrat but without any of the advantages that one in such a position should posses. She is full of debts which she cannot pay. These debts are a symbol of her personality; she is an excessive woman who does whatever her emotions incline her to do, regardless to the consequences. It is to this that she is loyal, her emotions. Anya complains of this, how she squanders her money on food
Heather Quelch
The Anglo European School
No. 0078
May 2002
Page 3/3
and needless servants. Evidence to this is later provided in the form of Ranyevskaya’s generous donation to the passer-by and the later giving of her purse to the peasants. In her words “I couldn’t help it! I simply couldn’t help it!” Further evidence of this attitude is concerning her lover in Paris, common sense tells her he is unsuitable and yet her passions win as she, at the end of the play resolves to return to him. Another of the abstract that Ranyevskaya proves to be loyal to is that of the past or maybe the ideals and illusions concerning the past that time has allowed her to have. Her embracing of Trofimov in the first act is symbolic of this as Trofimov represents the past. The outpouring of her grief concerning the death of her son, an event that had happened five year previously, is a sign that she is still living in the past, five years being sufficient time to grieve. The biggest sign of her loyalty to the past is that of her refusal to accept the present. She turns up her nose at Lopakhin’s idea of renting land out in an act of denial. She refuses to believe that the Cherry Orchard will be sold, holding out instead for some miracle. In this she loses her greatest financial asset and her home.
These two characters both show signs of strong loyalty but both in different ways and to different things. Subsequently, the consequences for both are extremely different. Nora, in “A Doll’s House”, through her questioning of her marital relationship and the resulting recognition of false values, manages to achieve the prospect of self awareness and development; this is a direct consequence of her eventual loyalty to herself. Ranyevskaya’s loyalties, on the other hand, lead to her downfall. The combination of her personal loyalties, her enslavement to emotions of which extravagance is the consequence, and her loyalty to the past which results in the denial of the present, can be seen as the two greatest personal factors that are responsible for her loss of the Cherry Orchard.
Word count = 1,441 (excluding title and any other additional information)
Total no of words used = 1,518