Doll\'s House and Antigone Sophocles and Henrik

¶ … Doll's House and Antigone

Sophocles and Henrik Ibsen explore the philosophical discussion of judgment in Antigone and A Doll's House, respectively. In Antigone, the title character questions the right of leaders to judge strictly when she commits treason after burying her brother. The deciding factor in determining Ibsen's characters' fates in A Doll's House is a moral dilemma of the intent behind an act of fraud. Both Sophocles and Ibsen pass judgment on their characters, but show that the justice system may be flawed when motive and intent are not considered in the prosecution of crimes.

Antigone directly challenges the authority of King Creon when she says, "Your edict, King, was strong, but all your strength is weakness itself against the immortal laws of God. They are not merely now: they were, and shall be, operative forever, beyond man utterly." (Sophocles, Scene 2) This illustrates the primary conflict of the play: Antigone fighting against what she believes is an immoral judgment. Antigone is essentially a philosophical piece with debate and argument rather than character development and plot. Sophocles' characters are simplistic and archetypal, allowing him to pass judgment on all of the real people whom they may represent.

Ibsen, on the other hand, develops the characters and the conflict of A Doll's House over the course of the play, rather than relying on exposition like Sophocles. In the first discussion between Nora and Mrs. Linde, Ibsen does not reveal the exact nature of the issue, but the justification is explicit, with the presentation of the question: "is it imprudent to save your husband's life?" (Act I) Saving a life is considered an act of heroism, so the assumption is that the audience will take Nora's side. When the nature of Nora's crime is revealed, the audience then confronts a moral dilemma. Although the audience believes that Nora's actions were justified, they were also illegal. When Krogstad asks Nora if she believed that she had defrauded him, she says no, which makes Krogstad's claim that his own offense was "nothing more or nothing worse than what you have done." (Act I) Ibsen is asserting the idea that "the law cares nothing about motives" and that regardless of whether or not the law is just, it is "the law by which you will be judged" (Act I). Both Ibsen and Sophocles argue that in order to be just, motivation must be taken into account.

Nora's character presents clear arguments that represent moral absolutes. For example, she says, "no, it's impossible! I did it for love's sake" (Act I) which shows that her actions are ruled by her emotions. Ibsen, like Sophocles, argues that the basis of laws are more important than the laws themselves. Sophocles' treatment of law is similar to Ibsen's, though he uses the laws of the gods rather than intuitive morals. Frank Jevons writes: "The lesson as well as the art of Sophocles is that man's fate, though determined by the gods, depends on his actions, and his actions on himself and his circumstances" (60-61).

Antigone has a strong sense of morality, stating that, "there are honors due all the dead" (Sophocles, Scene 2). The arguments of those opposite Antigone and Nora are shown to be flawed. For instance, Creon argues that, "Whoever is chosen to govern should be obeyed -- Must be obeyed, in all things, great and small, Just and unjust!" (Scene 3) This shows that he values his own authority over true justice, which contradicts his earlier statement of principles. His short tempered treatment of the Sentry, Haemon, and Tiresias show Creon's character flaws and thus devalue his authority. In A Doll's House, Torvald is also proven to be a hypocrite by arguing that all laws must be obeyed. After reading Krogstad's letter, he calls Nora a liar and a criminal, and thus he thinks she is an unfit mother. Later, he reverses his attitude, claiming to "know that what you did, you did out of love for me" (Ibsen, Act III). The change in Torvald's attitude was caused by Nora's actions no longer causing him any personal harm. This scene shows that Torvald, like Creon, is hypocritical about his own principles. These flaws devalue the opinions of Creon and Torvald, and promote the positions of Antigone and Nora because they never defy their own principles.

Yet, despite the characterizations of Creon and Torvald, Sophocles and Ibsen do not criticize the credibility of the laws that are broken by Antigone and Nora. Even though Sophocles argues that punishing Antigone for treason would be wrong, he does not attempt to justify her actions. Sophocles is thus arguing that the circumstances surrounding the crime should determine one's guilt or innocence. Ibsen does not argue that fraud should be legal, as he uses Krogstad to illustrate a circumstance when the illegality of fraud resulted in a just punishment. Rather, he uses Nora to attack the justice system for its disregard of motive, just like Antigone's attacks on Creon's right to undermine natural laws.

Sophocles' answer for Antigone's philosophical dilemma at the end of the play is that Creon causes the deaths of Haemon and Eurydice because of his choice to disregard Antigone's reason for committing her crime. Antigone ends her own life, as she has threatened throughout the play. Ibsen's ending is not as absolute as Sophocles' ending. Nora is not prosecuted for her crime, and obtains freedom from doll house existence, while Torvald is given another opportunity to redeem himself. Unlike the undeniably tragic ending of Antigone, the ending of A Doll's House can be interpreted as either tragic or triumphant. As Ian Johnston declares: "Nora is both triumphantly right and horribly wrong. She is free, brave, strong, and uncompromisingly herself and, at the same time, socially irresponsible, naive, self-destructive, and destructive of others."