Marital Strain in Henrik Ibsens Ghosts and Anton Chekhovs the Seagull - Essay Example

?Marital Strain in Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts and Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull Marital strain has often been the theme of many literary works. It has been presented as the source of conflict between the characters in the stories written by many authors. This is also the subject in the plays Ghosts and The Seagull, which are respectively written by Henrik Ibsen and Anton Chekhov. However, the manners that this subject is present differ in the two. Unlike the other works of literature that dwelt on the matter, marital strain in both Ghosts and The Seagull is presented as the cause of the problems and conflicts that the characters are facing. Whatever marital strain they may be experiencing is not the gist but it is that which occurred in the past. Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts may have an interesting title because of what it connotes. However, the title actually refers to the past that haunts Mrs. Alving, which is essentially a marital issue that was left unresolved between her and her husband. Mr. Alving was a philanderer and this, of course, resulted into a conflict with his wife. Mr. Alving died and this issue was never settled. Mrs. Alving thought that this sad past could be hidden from the rest of society and that she herself as well as the rest of those who knew of the issue could simply forget it. She did, however, tries to make use of the lessons she learned from the past in rearing her only son, Oswald. Her attempt did not succeed since Oswald, while being away for so long, also developed his own philandering ways. Oswald’s attitude towards women is not the only condition that reminds Mrs. Alving of the marital strains she experienced in the past. New circumstances emerged that brought back the ghosts of marital infidelities and other conflicts between spouses. These are issues that Mrs. Alving has tried to keep hidden from the rest of society. In Ghosts, it is clear that Ibsen presents Mrs. Alving as, although imperfect, a wife that remains faithful to her husband, despite his infidelities, and to the expectations of society. The reasons why Mrs. Alving is bent on hiding the truth about the marital strains are primarily because of social, religious, and cultural reasons. When she learned about her husband’s philandering, she already wanted to end her relationship with him. However, what prevent her from doing so are the restrictions placed by society and religion. It is a society that turns a blind eye to husbands committing violations to their marriage vows but at the same time greatly disdains wives who do the same. Religious beliefs and cultural norms that are biased towards men are also dominant in her time. Patriarchy or male domination was prevalent. Because of this, marital strains that are caused by the infidelities committed by the husband are not considered as major infractions. The wives are expected to just understand their husband’s unfaithfulness and to remain loving and faithful to their spouses. Marital strains would certainly arise in this circumstance but wives are expected to remain meek and obedient, which is why such conflicts are always tried to be concealed. However, when it is the wife who would become unfaithful, she is to be despised. Even the mere thought of doing so is already considered a major violation to the marriage vows. The proof of such gender inequality can be seen in the reaction of Pastor Manders when Mrs. Alving states her attraction to him. As a churchman, it is expected that Pastor Manders would be sensitive to the needs of people. However, his gentle ways made Mrs. Alving get attracted to him. This tendency of Mrs. Alving may be attributed to her dissatisfaction over her marriage. As pointed out earlier, marital strains could trigger the spouses to seek comfort and companionship from other individuals, making them vulnerable to committing infidelities too. However, Pastor Manders negative response to Mrs. Alving’s intentions has clearly prevented the latter to be as unfaithful as her husband. It must be pointed out though that the attitude of Pastor Manders towards Mrs. Alving’s approaches is also influenced by cultural norms of the time. During this era, it is clear that men can choose and get women anytime they want and they could also reject them if they wish to. This again proves the fact that gender inequality during the time. The second couple that Ibsen’s Ghosts depicted is Engstrand and his wife Johanna. While Ibsen allowed Mrs. Alving’s character to describe her life with her husband, he did not have the same treatment for Engstrand. However, it is through Engstrand’s short quips that give clues on what kind of marriage he had with Johanna. One particular quip is when Engstrand makes fun of the fact that Johanna slept with a yachtsman and received money for it (Ibsen). It must be noted that at this point in time, the chivalrous attitude towards women is still prevalent. Yet, there is also the trend in which women are treated as objects that could be sold for the sake of sexual gratification. In one scene, Mrs. Alving tells Manders about a confession that Joanna made to her. She said that Joanna admitted that there was really no love between her and Engstrand. The marriage was basically a partnership for the convenience of both parties. Joanna stuck with the marriage because of sympathy for Engstrand. On the other hand, Engstrand needed Johanna as a means of earning more money. He actually facilitated Johanna’s prostitution. Such kind of relationship is obviously not the type that would last and if it does, it would be one where marital strain is endless. There would always be causes for conflicts between husband and wife to arise. What makes this different from the case of Mrs. Alving and her husband though is that this is not caused by the concept that in a marriage, it is the man that is dominant; which is why he could do whatever he wants, including womanizing. In the case of Engstrand and Johanna, the concept depicted by Ibsen is the monetization of a marriage. Marriage, in this regard, is treated like a business arrangement. Since there is no love between the spouses, it is only expected that marital conflicts would prevail. In Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull, there is only one particular marital relationship that is presented, that of Masha and Medvedenko. There were also other romantic relationships that are presented in the story. These relationships may not be marriages but these are still worth analyzing because these could be considered as the bases of what would be the conflicts that would emerge once the couples get married. The play itself may not revolve around the issue of marital strain. However, for the audience, it is clear that there are particular scenes where the subject of marital strain is highlighted. One specific aspect regarding this is that conflicts between spouses can arise if emotional demands are not met. Even the couple is actually rich or even if they can easily acquire the things that they believe could make them enjoy life, they may still be unable to achieve happiness if their partnership lacks the necessary ingredient that make them stick together through thick and thin. Another issue related to marital strain that is given attention is that unresolved problems of the individual, even if these are from the past, could greatly affect the relationship between spouses. Therefore, even if a couple does have the right combination and even if they do have love for one another, unresolved issues that they may have individually could hinder the proper development of a married relationship. These issues could be personal, emotional, or related to the family. At the first part of the play, the focus is on the Masha and Medvedenko. Masha hopes to catch Treplev’s attention and make him fall for her. She fails, however, to achieve her aim. Treplev ignores her. On the other hand, Medvedenko tries to woo Masha, while thinking that if he only has fame and money like Treplev, Masha would easily fall for him (Chekhov). In fact, Masha did express that she knows that Medvedenko has genuine romantic feelings for her but she just could not accept it because she wants Treplev instead. Because of her failure to win Treplev’s heart, Masha ended up marrying Medvedenko. Given this background, it is only expected that the marital relationship that Masha and Medvedenko have is not very healthy. Later, as the story, evolves, there are scenes in which Masha shows how she values serving Treplev and his family more than her responsibilities as wife to Medvedenko and mother to their baby. With a weak foundation as a romantic couple, the basis for marital conflicts has been laid out. The case of Masha’s attraction to the man with more money and more stable emotionally is again highlighted in Nina’s case. Nina is the object of Treplev’s romantic feelings but she happens to be strongly attracted to Trigorin, who is Arkadina’s lover. Arkadina, a famous and successful actress is Treplev’s mother. This complicated situation is actually the main plot of the play. Trigorin liked Nina too and they have a relationship even as he remains Arkadina’s lover. Despite Trigorin’s infidelity, Arkadina continues her relationship with Trigorin simply because she knows that between her and Nina, she is better off economically. In the end, Trigorin did decide to stop the relationship between him and Nina and he remained faithful to Arkadina afterwards. This, however, does not raise Treplev’s chances with Nina. This is because Nina still loves Trigorin. Ultimately, Treplev becomes a victim of the situation when he killed himself. It is clear that The Seagull is all about the unrequited love and how such issue may continue to haunt people for years even when they have actually entered married life with another person. Such an issue unless resolved or gotten over with could be the basis for serious problems with the marriage. Both Ghosts and The Seagull are stories in which the issue of marital strain is discussed although indirectly from different perspectives. Ibsen presents the external conditions, such as culture and religion as bases. Chekhov, on the other hand, points out that the basis could also be internal of the individual, especially if he or she has unresolved issues. Works Cited Chekhov, Anton. The Seagull. London, UK: Faber and Faber, 2007. Ibsen, Henrik. Ghosts. Middlesex, UK: The Echo Library, 2006. Read More