The Hollowness of Conventional 19th Century Christian Morality in Henrik Ibsens A Doll’s House and Emile Zolas Therese Raquin. - Literature Essay Samples

Both Ibsen and Zola were firm believers in portraying their characters and works from a realistic perspective. Zola founded the naturalist movement in fiction and shared the same general perspective on society as Ibsen, who was the first of a new generation of naturalistic modern playwrights. In both Therese Raquin and A Doll’s House, the alleged central place of Christianity in 19th century European society is indirectly subverted through subtle suggestions of its irrelevance, or lack of importance, in the characters’ lives. Because of the already morally controversial nature of both Ibsen’s play and Zola’s novel, thanks to their subversion of traditional gender roles, an obvious critique of the Church or of normative religious opinion in the 19th century would have landed both writers in difficult situations. Thus, by use of indirect yet carefully aimed references, both Ibsen and Zola allude to Christianity as a hollow institution, serving merely as a sp ecious societal value, which is largely ignored in practice. Zola, coming from Catholic France, portrays the Church as an impersonal, mechanical tyranny looming in the background of his characters’ lives. Ibsen, coming from Protestant Norway, takes a more direct yet understated approach, purposely setting his play around Christmas, while having his characters mention only the materialist aspect of the holiday.As Ibsen’s play opens, a quarrel occurs between Nora, the main character, and her husband, Torvald, over how much money should be spent buying presents. (Act I, Page 10) Whilst he demands economy, she is eager to spend. Both characters see the echanging of gifts on Christmas as a familial and social obligation, the basis of which is the spending of money, not the honouring of a religious event. Similarly, Zola portrays the Church as a place not for divine worship, but rather attended only when necessary for events such as marriage. When Therese and Laurent are be ing married in church, their conduct is business-like, their â€Å"quiet and modest† (Chapter 20, Page 153) bearing being â€Å"noticed with approbation† (Chapter 20, Page 153). The irony of this, considering that their marriage has been made possible thanks to their murder of Camille, is hard to miss. Both Zola and Ibsen were self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ (observers of nature) and atheists who put themselves in the same category as Darwin and other prominent scientists. However, living in 19th century Europe, both authors had to convey their renegade beliefs diplomatically. The idea of Christianity as an obsolete establishment is furthered by the two writers’ representation of religious and moral feeling as something mechanical and impersonal. Neither Therese nor Laurent feels any real guilt or remorse for the cardinal ‘sins’ they have committed, which include breaking the commandments regarding coveting thy neighbour’s wife an d committing adultery, not to mention killing. Zola is at pains to make clear that all they care about is not getting found out. As for Nora, she feels that she is a tainted, sinful woman, unfit to be a mother. Yet the ‘crime’ she has committed was an altruistic and ostensibly ‘Christian’ act, borrowing money illegally and thereby risking her own security to save her husband’s life. Is Torvald prepared to demonstrate ‘Christian’ forgiveness when he finds this out? Not at all, he judges and condemns his wife for her self-sacrifice. At the end of A Doll’s House, when Nora makes clear her intention to leave her home because of his total lack of gratitude or sympathy over her sacrifice for him, Torvald inquires acidly whether she has â€Å"no religion, no ethics, no sense of duty† (Act III, Page 77). He relates religion to societal obligations, referring to it as a duty rather than an act of faith or love. Religion, to him, i s only a set of social rules he has never once thought to question along with his own moral and religious hypocrisy. Nora later comments, (almost sarcastically) â€Å"miracles don’t happen everyday, God knows† (Act 3, Page 84), in reference to her diminished hope or Helmer’s support for her sacrifice on his behalf. Coming after she has just stated that she does not understand religion, this gives the comment an almost mocking tone.Zola mirrors this type of irony in his description of Madame Raquin’s situation after her paralysis. The use of opposites insinuates the imbalanced and contradictory nature of divine worship; Madame Raquin’s face is depicted as with â€Å"flesh hung loose and grimacing† (Chapter 26, Page 204), yet in the midst of this ugliness, her eyes are of â€Å"heavenly loveliness† (Chapter 26, Page 204). Moreover, the lower part of her face described as â€Å"bleak and colourless† (Chapter 26, Page 204), while t he upper part filled with â€Å"divine radiance† (Chapter 26, Page 204). Zola is associating pious spiritual beauty with physical grotesqueness, as if the two go hand in hand. Advancing on this comes Zola’s most obvious attack on religion, where even the most pure and devout character is turned sour and distrusting, thinking that if she could, she would have â€Å"cursed God†. This goes on to become increasingly bitter because of His â€Å"deceit†, and culminates in a simple yet groundbreaking statement; â€Å"God was wicked† (Chapter 26, Page 206). Thus when Madame Raquin opens up to reality, she sees through the faà §ade to the true hollowness of the Church.Ibsen’s attack on the emptiness of religious values is furthered when Nora rightly replies to Helmer’s accusations of impiety and sinfulness, â€Å"I don’t know what (religion) is† (Act 3, Page 83), elaborating that she knows only what the clergymen have said about it. She says, â€Å"he told us religion was this, and that, and the other† (Act 3, Page 83), her very diction indicating the domineering, mechanical nature of the church. Helmer replies that this dissent from conventional gender roles, as stipulated by religious authority, is occurring because she â€Å"does not understand the society (she) lives in† (Act 3, Page 84). What this implies is that the Norwegian Protestant Church, like the Catholic Church in Zola’s France, is a statutory institution, a domineering power that commands instead of guiding and is largely ignored or misunderstood. This is the direct opposite of what Christian spirituality was originally supposed to be—a faith taken up as a matter of personal conscience, rather than a machine for enforcing social conformity. Ibsen illustrates his troubled protagonist as a truly honest character who does not understand or approve of religion as she has been taught it, but has merely been pretending to her whole life. Zola, on the other hand, subverts religion in a different, more sporadic way, the constant usage of God’s name in vain continually reinforcing the main characters’ disregard for religious morality. Any time the murder of Camille is directly spoken of, Therese exclaims, â€Å"Oh God! Oh God!† (Chapter 28/29, Page 218/229) as a kind of empty reflex. This notion is amplified throughout the rest of the novel as neither Therese nor Laurent ever considers the presumed divine consequences of the murder for their souls. Only at a point where they feel overwhelmed by fear of worldly punishment do they invoke the Lord’s name in a seemingly pathetic attempt at finding an easy way out of their dilemma out of pure desperation. Finally, Therese and Laurent commit double suicide, a religiously interdicted act and an illegal one, and do so nor out of guilt, but rather only as an alternative either to murdering one another to prevent mutual betrayal of their murder of Camille; or to actually betraying each other, being arrested, tried and duly murdered by the state. Notably, Nora too contemplates suicide without regard for its supposed divine consequences, but with plenty of consideration for avoiding social humiliation. While Ibsen exposes the vacancy of feeling in socially imposed religious mores through a blunt admission by Nora, which is actually a reflection of her own enlightenment and her emergence as an intelligent, self-aware character; Zola instead makes use of short, quick insinuations to reveal the absence of any reflection and conscience, religious or otherwise, in his main characters to display the depth of their depravity and desperation.Another way that Zola and Ibsen allude to the emptiness and irrelevance of religion in the society they are depicting is by not mentioning it, or doing so sparingly. In A Doll’s House, the moral dilemma of the play would, in 19th century European culture, naturally involve an extensive discussion of religion. However, Ibsen ensures that this always remains merely as a backdrop, not as an intimate, important part of Torvald and Nora’s lives. To reiterate, this is the source of the irony of the play’s taking place on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day, all religious holidays, yet no character ever mentions the religious dimension of these events, while the prevailing actions being displayed on these holy days are threats of blackmail, marital duplicity, thoughts of suicide, lack of empathy for loved ones or spite and envy. The deterioration of the Christmas tree is also emblematic of the ethical issues faced by Ibsen’s characters, as it serves to compliment their own moral decay as time progresses. Similarly, Therese and Laurent never weigh up the ethical, much less the metaphysical implications of murder and for both of them. Everything is subordinate to gratification of their selfish desires. Thereby, Zola uses the absence of a moral framework in his main characters’ lives to imply the hollow, obsolete, irrelevant nature of the Church’s moral teaching in his society. Neither author could be accused of criticizing Christianity directly, yet both Zola and Ibsen present the audience with a world in which religion is identifiable with social conformity rather than personal conscience, and is complied with out of habit and necessity, if it is even remembered at all.Therese Raquin,Emile Zola,Translation by Leonard TancockPenguin Classics1962A Doll’s House,Henrik Ibsen,Translation by Kenneth McLeish1995

Milton Versus Astell A Study of Paradise Lost, Reflections on Marriage, and Holy Matrimony - Literature Essay Samples

When comparing their two works, it becomes clear that while John Milton’s Paradise Lost shares the general viewpoint on marriage found in Mary Astell’s Reflections upon Marriage — that being that the institution of marriage of the time period was problematic — the two differ greatly on what they present as the cause of the problem. Based on the evidence in the text, Milton appears to believe that women pose the issue in the union. In sharp contrast, Astell appears to propose that the fault lies with men, outlining a few that is equally strong-willed in its assertions. One feature that reveals Milton’s and Astell’s conflicting viewpoint on who holds the fault for problematic marriages is the focus of their writing when referring to the subject. One will note, for example, that the argument posed in Astell’s writing largely criticizes the way men choose their wives: â€Å"They who marry for Love as they call it, find time enough to repent their rash Folly†¦ Whether it be Wit or Beauty that a Mans in Love with, theres no great hopes of a lasting Happiness† (Astell). Men are spoken of in an active tense, having actions attributed to them in a way not found in Astell’s descriptions of women. To be fair, there is one mention of action attributed to the hypothetical women in this scenario, but it does not disprove my point. When speaking on how a woman’s wit will not give her husband long-lasting satisfaction, Astell states, â€Å"it is not improbable that such a Husband may in a little time by ill usage pr ovoke such a Wife to exercise her Wit, that is, her Spleen on him, and then it is not hard to guess how very agreeable it will be to him† (Astell). Juxtaposing the two examples, one can see that Astell only breaks from describing women in the passive when explaining how a woman’s actions will cause he husband to react. The description is sandwiched between two male actions and will largely go unnoticed to those who read it. Compare this depiction of men to the way Milton writes Adam as he reflects on Eve. As he speaks with the angel Raphael about his creation and thusly the creation of Eve, Adam expresses that his adoration for her goes beyond rational thought: â€Å"For well I understand in the prime end / Of nature her th’ inferior†¦ yet when I approach / Her loveliness, so absolute she seems/ And in herself complete† (Milton 2088-2089). While the writing still places Adam as the active subject, notice that Eve, intentionally or not, entices Adam to abandon the principles with which he was created. Eve is literally the cause of the earliest issue with their union. This, one can see, is the key difference. Both Astell and Milton express their beliefs that long marriages must be sustained on more than mere attraction to the body or mind, but they place the blame in the situation on the opposite party. Astell’s focus on male folly as she writes demonstrates her assumption that s hould a marriage fail, it will be because the husband acted too hastily as he chose a life partner. Meanwhile, Milton asserts that in a marriage based on love, women will be the ultimate destruction of their combined happiness. Based on the evidence, it becomes apparent that while Milton and Astell share the perspective that marriage is problematic, they differ drastically on who in the relationship is the cause of the unhappiness. Much like how the writing styles of both Milton and Astell explore the parties they place blame on for an unhappy marriage, so to do the narrative they create around their arguments. In both their works Astell and Milton construct a clear antagonist figure in the marriage, portraying the problematic party in purely negative contexts. To begin, I will dissect Milton’s depiction of Eve’s awakening after being created. â€Å"I first awakened, and found myself reposed / Under a shade of flowers,† Eve recounts in a conversation with Adam, â€Å"much wond’ring where / And what I was† (Milton 2012). There are immediate differences between Eve’s first impressions versus Adam’s. As Adam remembers being created, he tells Raphael, â€Å"As new waked from soundless sleep†¦ I found me laid / In balmy sweat, which with his beams the sun / Soon dried† (Milton 2083). Whereas Eve wakes in the shade — the darkness — Adam wakes in the light. This not only portrays Eve as an innately antagonistic partner but also symbolizes their intelligences relative to each other. There are multiple instances throughout the poem of Eve having to be explicitly told information. By her own admission, she would have remained staring at herself had a divine voice not intervened: â€Å"there I had fixed / Mine eyes till now, and pinned with vain desire / Had not a voice thus warned me† (Milton 2013). This is similar to how Astell portrays the antagonist in her views on marriage. The husband in her scenario is portrayed as hasty, focusing on things that will grow unfavourable over time. As Astell describes, â€Å"They who marry for Love as they call it, find time enough to repent their rash Folly† (Astell). Much like Eve the hypothetical husband is conveyed as largely unintelligent and not having put much thought into their actions. Similarly, both authors mention their respective problematic partners being quick to anger when the situation does not become ideal. Note that in Book 9 of Paradise Lost, after Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Life, there comes a scene that perfectly echoes Astell’s description of why wit will not sustain a happy a happy marriage. Similarly to the hypothetical wife in Astell’s scenario, Adam â€Å"exercises his Spleen† on Eve when he fully realizes how her actions have doomed them both, something that appears to be justified by the text given Eve’s antagonistic portrayal. I encourage the reader to compare this with Astell’s version: â€Å"it is not improbable that such a Husband may in a little time by ill usage provoke such a Wife to exercise her Wit, that is, her Spleen on him, and then it is not hard to guess how very agreeable it will be to him† (Astell). The pattern in both are mirror copies of each other the problematic spouse causes the unproblematic spouse to get angry, resulting in the problematic spouse getting angry in turn rather than try to resolve the matter peacefully. The intent to place one party in the wrong is strongly apparent and once again displays that while Astell and Milton agree that marriage is problematic, they differ on the matter of who in the marriage is responsible for the unhappiness. Both Astell and Milton were authors that challenged the expectations of marriage, revealing that under planned, rushed judgements for long-term relationships are ill-advised and do not produce long-lasting happiness. While they do agree on this idea, they disagree on who should be blamed for this unhappiness. Astell accuses men of being the problem; for his part, Milton places the blame on women, reflecting a divergence in the views of these two influential authors.