In ‘A Doll’s House’ by Henrik Ibsen and ‘Madame Bovary’ by Gustave Flaubert, published in 1879 and 1856 respectively, women are presented with varying degrees of innocence and are shown to be, in some aspects, victimised. Ibsen’s play is a dramatic exploration of human rights and the traditional roles of men and women within marriage, whilst Flaubert explores the bourgeois lifestyle and provincial life. As the texts were both written in the nineteenth century, there were similar societal expectations ¬for women at the time. The main responsibilities of women were being housewives and thus serving their husbands and children. Both texts received strong criticism due to the contentious matters depicted – nineteenth century readers and audiences found their contents crude and obscene. The two female protagonists are depicted as controversial in different ways. Ibsen explores a wife who leaves her husband and children in favour of herself and Flaubert explores adultery and extramarital affairs; this therefore proved the women to most readers and audiences at the time of publication to be unnatural in not fulfilling their stereotypical duties as wives. Therefore most at the time would have argued that both female protagonists were significantly lacking in innocence, and could not be considered victims. Alternatively, from a twenty-first century point of view, such immoral acts could be viewed as justified by the pressures of the societies that the characters are placed in, making them both innocent and victims.
It could be argued that both female protagonists in the texts are trapped within their marriages. From this interpretation, it could be said that the women are innocent of their errors and are victims of the societal expectations of the time. Ibsen presents Nora Helmer to encounter entrapment within marriage. This debatably could show that she is a victim of the society she is placed in and is innocent of her actions. Contrasting Flaubert’s use of Charles Bovary, Ibsen portrays Torvald Helmer to show an intense possessiveness over his wife, in dialogue and stage directions. The audience is introduced to this straight away in Act One, where Ibsen employs images of subordination and ownership through Torvald’s terms of endearment for Nora – “my squirrel”, “my little squanderbird”, and “my little songbird” – and through his movement about the stage. Nora seems to pace the stage restlessly as if confined in a cage and Torvald “(Goes over to her)” and “(follows her)” as she moves around. By using the possessive pronoun “my” consistently when referring to Nora, Ibsen establishes that Torvald views Nora as a commodity rather than a woman with rights. An audience would be able to see through Torvald’s stage directions that by following Nora around the house the theme of restriction and entrapment is enforced and emphasised. Nora seemingly tries to distance herself from her husband, and cannot find contentedness in the household – perhaps Ibsen is presenting her to the audience as a victim. The audience can particularly see that Nora attempts to find physical and emotional warmth in the apartment whenever she feels threatened. Nora frequently “(goes over towards the stove)”, and it is this stove that Ibsen uses to represent the security that Nora desires – he employs a naturalistic method to display the emotions of his characters. An audience could interpret from a performance of this act that Nora is a victim of the society she lives in, but at this point seems to play up to her role. Nora certainly seems innocent to Torvald, but through Ibsen’s use of dramatic irony, we as an audience can see already that Nora has been deceitful. This potentially alters our view of Nora and shapes our opinions as to whether she is an innocent victim – deceit seemingly comes easily to her. Through the use of props, the audience sees that Nora “takes from her pocket a bag containing macaroons and eats a couple” but a little while later, when asked by Torvald if she has had any macaroons, says “No, Torvald – I promise you, honestly – !” A display of deception in the beginning of Act One, albeit a debatably small one, almost promises for more deception later in the play, hinting that Nora is lacking of innocence. There is certainly an irony in the fact that the audience knows more than Torvald, the head of the household.
Nora further deceives her husband by forging her father’s signature illegally in order to help Torvald recover from his illness. Whilst Ibsen suggests that Nora seems to lack innocence in deceiving her husband and the law, her reasons for doing so seem innocent. When confronted with her deceit, Nora claims “I’ve loved you more than anything else in the world” and is shown in Act One to believe she “saved Torvald’s life”. Nora believes that she has done the right thing and finds herself proud of her actions until the arrival of Krogstad. She views that her actions are justified, as they were actions of love. Ibsen may have presented Nora as childlike (“you’re going to make lots and lots of money”) in order to justify her betrayal to Torvald and emphasise the contrast in her character at the end of Act Three. Her forgery may not have been innocent, but her intentions to the audience seem to be. However, from Act One the audience finds that Torvald is strongly against taking out loans when he says “No debts! Never borrow!” and therefore we see that Nora knowingly went against her husband’s wishes, suggesting Nora is lacking in innocence. Whilst Ibsen presented Nora as childlike at the beginning of the play, this quality is seen to fade throughout. Such a change is also seen in Ibsen’s symbol of the Christmas tree, where the audience can clearly see an image of disintegration. The Christmas tree symbolises Nora’s place in the household as something to be looked upon for decoration and also symbolises her psychological state over the course of the play. In Act One Nora decorates the tree with candles and flowers, but by Act Two “(…the Christmas tree stands, stripped and dishevelled, its candles burnt to their sockets…)”. This symbolises the decline from domestic happiness and unity to ruin. Perhaps Nora could be seen as a victim of this decline – her debatably innocent intentions only seem to bring problems to the family. The Christmas tree is also paralleled alongside Nora in that she is shown to be “(…walking restlessly to and fro…)”, as her psychological state is also “dishevelled”. Ibsen’s staging of Nora “restlessly” walking particularly shows to the audience her anxiety of her deception being discovered. Thus it may be argued that even though she is aware of her wrongdoings, she still believes them to be justified – adding to her innocent portrayal.
Similarly, much like Ibsen’s Nora Helmer, Flaubert’s character of Emma Bovary could be viewed by readers as trapped within her marriage to Charles Bovary, which ultimately leads her to have adulterous thoughts and actions where “Domestic mediocrity drove her to lewd fancies, marriage tenderness to adulterous desires”, as seen in Part One of the novel. Flaubert parallels domesticity against adultery, emphasising Emma’s struggle to fit in to her conventional expectation of marriage – she is depicted by Flaubert to believe in an idealistic version of love that ultimately brings her to her end. The noun “mediocrity” builds upon the typicality of marriage at the time, in which most women were expected to simply bear children, care for them and submit to their husbands. Flaubert particularly deconstructs the typical nineteenth century idea that women should have fewer urges, ambitions and desires than men. Thus, Emma could be viewed as a victim of the bourgeois society, a society that predominantly favoured men over women. Flaubert’s use of free indirect speech allows him to convey thoughts and feelings of characters closely – he shows Emma to have “hoped for a son” as “A man, at least, is free…But a woman is always hampered”. This reinforces the idea that women mostly had fewer rights than men, with less freedom and choice. From this, it could be argued that women are mainly presented as innocent victims due to their inferior standing beneath men.
Alternatively, Emma is seen to hold power over her husband – she commits adultery with two other men and frequently purchases expensive items that fuel the debt against her husband’s property through Monsieur Lheureux. Although this strongly opposes the idea that women are presented as innocent figures, the reader is given an insight into Emma’s momentary freedom during her extramarital affair with Rodolphe in which “she was entering upon marvels where all would be passion, ecstasy, delirium.” Flaubert’s use of a triple emphasises the emotions that were particularly lacking when Emma was faithful to her husband. The word “delirium” almost suggests that Emma is intoxicated by her newfound love, an idea that a twenty-first century reader could sympathise with more so than a nineteenth century reader could. This is because, typically, twenty-first century readers have more malleable views of what is justifiable for love, suggesting that from certain perspectives she is somewhat innocent. Contrasting this “delirium”, Emma’s emotions in her marriage can be seen in Part One of the novel, where “the ennui, the silent spider, was weaving its web in the darkness in every corner of her heart”. Flaubert employs a metaphor to emphasise Emma’s boredom and tedium, and furthermore uses a metaphor and sibilance in “the silent spider” that connotes images of fear and distress. Thus, it could be argued that sympathy is further generated from the reader, fuelling the idea that Flaubert presents Emma to be a victim of marriage in the nineteenth century. However, to a typical nineteenth century reader, Emma’s adultery is a sin and cannot be excused.
While both protagonist women in each text display varying amounts of innocence and are shown to be victims to differing degrees, the same could be said for the protagonist men. Flaubert presents Charles Bovary to be innocent in his outlook on life, which is similar to Nora Helmer’s – he believes “the universe did not extend beyond the circumference of [Emma’s] petticoat”. Flaubert’s use of hyperbole creates an almost comic effect on the reader, in that Charles is so enamoured by Emma that he does not see her faults. Flaubert also uses symbolism in ‘Madame Bovary’ to build upon Charles’ innocence. For example, “Bovary” is a play on “bovine”, meaning slow and stupid. Unassuming in nature, Charles does not realise that Rodolphe and Emma are having an affair and merely prompts their relations by forcing Emma to take horse-riding lessons. He also is convinced by Emma to allow her to take piano lessons with Leon, the second man she has an affair with, and believes her lies when he nearly comes across her previous deceptions. Charles is docile and complies with Emma’s needs when she falls ill. As a male figure, Charles could also be viewed as a victim due to the fact that both of the women that he married were domineering over him. Flaubert sets the tone for the novel at the start of Part One – Charles’ first wife, Heloise Dubuc, is found to be a liar. This foreshadows what is to come in the rest of the novel when he remarries. Emma, his second wife, finds Heloise’s wedding bouquet “of orange blossoms tied with white satin ribbons” in Part One, and later in the novel, Flaubert uses Emma’s own wedding bouquet (that also ironically contained “orange blossoms”, possibly foretelling Emma’s own betrayal of Charles) as a symbol of her and her husband’s relationship. When Emma comes across her wedding bouquet that is “yellow with dust” at the end of Part One, she throws it “into the fire”. Flaubert’s use of the word “fire” connotes images of destruction and danger, and Emma throwing her wedding bouquet into the flames symbolises her rejection of the marriage and the degradation of it. Due to the fact that Charles is shown by Flaubert to be ignorant of this occurrence, he could be viewed as a victim of ignorance itself. This obliviousness continues ironically until the death of Emma in the final part of the novel.
In ‘A Doll’s House’ Torvald can be interpreted as a victim by audiences due to the attitudes of the time. Ibsen depicts Helmer to hold rigid views, whilst having a fixation with abiding by the religious and moral code of the nineteenth century. After discovering Nora committed forgery, he claims she has “No religion, no morals, no sense of duty!” Ibsen’s use of a triple and repetition of the word “no” emphasises Torvald’s shock to Nora’s actions and his belief that she is immoral. Ibsen uses a generalisation in order to display the attitudes of men in the nineteenth century; “no man can be expected to sacrifice his honour, even for the person he loves”. The nineteenth century upbringing and societal pressure can be seen to have victimised Torvald. The use of the noun “sacrifice” suggests that such a loss of honour would be detrimental. This is because, in the nineteenth century, reputation was imperative to upper-middle class families. When considering Helmer’s innocence however, his entrapment of Nora complicates matters. It could be argued that Torvald is both a victim and innocent – the social expectations of men may have pressurised him into his mistreatment of Nora. Alternatively, he may be a victim of this pressure, but is not wholly innocent. This could be because he does not give Nora any liberty throughout the play, consistently treating her as his inferior.
Further adding to the theme of restriction and entrapment, Ibsen uses a motif of doors throughout the play, referring to them opening and closing almost forty times. The imagery of them signifies how trapped Nora is in the household. In the first few lines of the stage directions, the audience can see that Nora does not have a key to the front door, indicating the lack of equality in the household, seen when “(A bell rings in the hall outside)”. When Torvald finds out about Nora’s forgery in Act Three, he “(Locks the front door)”. The front door itself can be viewed as the door of liberation for Nora, and it is this door that Torvald holds the key to. Torvald fails to give Nora her own liberty and thus can be viewed as lacking in innocence. Flaubert also uses a similar motif of windows in his novel that reinforces the idea that Emma is confined, much like the doors in ‘A Doll’s House’ – the windows represent the possibility of escape. The first main image of a window is the window on Rouault’s farm, which signifies the announcement of Charles and Emma’s engagement. Another image of a window is when Emma contemplates committing suicide by jumping out of the attic window. Flaubert uses these two images to represent Emma’s desire to escape her marriage, but escape always remains far out of reach.
Overall, I believe that women in ‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘Madame Bovary’ are presented as victims more than they are presented as innocent. Ibsen and Flaubert’s characters particularly seem to purposefully go against their husbands and their wishes, but it could be argued this is due primarily to the society that they have been placed in. Both writers use their texts to criticise the society that they lived in – Ibsen criticises the actual society of the time and its views on traditional marriage, whilst Flaubert criticises the bourgeois society by giving a realistic portrayal of bourgeois life. In addition to this, it could also be argued that men along with women are shown as victims. Ibsen arguably presents his character of Torvald as a victim to the nineteenth century patriarchal society, and Flaubert presents his character of Charles Bovary as a victim of social ignorance. Perhaps this was their intention in writing their texts, to comment on society’s flaws and draw attention to them.