Nora and Medea Essay

Medea, in Medea, and Nora, in A Dolls family line, atomic number 18 both women who seem to suffer badly at the pass on of their preserves in both male-dominated societies the former in ancient Greece, the latter in nineteenth century Norway. Each does something important for her economise involving personal sacrifice, for which she expects sure treatment in return, but when this is non forthcoming, how do they match? Do they accept the roles of conventional wives, demure and weak? Or do they go up and be soak up unconventionally?Medeas market-gardening dictated that women had almost no rights, and were regarded as little more than than possessions we have to buy a husband and what we buy is someone to lord it over our body. Although Noras culture allowed women more rights, they were still forbidden indisputable privileges for example, a wife cant borrow with fall out her husbands consent. This shows the male dominated societies the twain women lived in, and the middl e-level role the wife was pass judgment to play.Medea was non, however, quite the conventional female of her culture for she is described as, a lioness, non human, wilder than Tyrrhenian Scylla. Her use of masculine linguistic communication I would rather fight three times, suggests she is almost male disrespect being a model wife of her time I have borne you sons. Nora also acts unconventionally for her era, acquire without her husbands consent, but is still a stereotypical wife in a sense, playing with her children and being her husbands inferior, a featherbrain and skylark.The sacrifices make by Medea for her husband Jason are considered evil arts in her golf-club, and cause her banishment. It is interesting to none that Medea make those sacrifices because her heart was, smitten with love for Jason. She even lists them to Jason it was I who killed the sleepless serpent . . . . I betrayed my father and my home. . . . I killed King Pelias. The severity of her sacrifice w ould be great in any culture, but to be stateless correspond a death sentence in the Ancient Greek world. It is discernible from the above that Medeas sacrifices were to protect Jasons life and destroy his enemies, which mirrors the hostelry they lived in, as it revolved around war and violence.Noras sacrifices seem honest in comparison to Medeas, since they do not involve murder. It was I who deliver Torvalds life, is a simple statement, which gives the audience Noras motive for borrowing the money. Throughout the play, it is obvious that Nora loves Torvald, as she says, if anything as horrid as that were to happen, when Torvald jests close his demise. Nora borrowed the money to enable Torvald to go to Italy to recover his health, but she obviously did not wish to worry him she told him how nice it would be to have a holiday. Nora authoritative the roll of the skylark, even though it was demeaning, to hide the truth from Torvald. This reflects her society too, because keepin g up middle class appearances was essential.After all the sacrifices do by Medea, and when she has come to live . . . with her husband, Jason winnow outs to acknowledge anything she has make for him, and claims, that his only protector on his travels . . . was Aphrodite, she alone. In this sense, Jason expects Medea to be a sacrificial lamb in their marriage, and to do his bidding without a thought of decent treatment or appreciation from him. He also becomes, the traitor who has betrayed her bed, by his marriage to the princess. He twists the facts of their lives to create the illusion that Medea is unjust in her expectations of him, and even goes so off the beaten track(predicate) as to say that it is for her sustain good I did it to safeguard you.Furthermore, by and by Medeas heart is broken, she is dealt a cruel blow when Creon tells her, take your two sons and go, into exile. Because of her love for Jason, and the sacrifices she has made for him, she is hated and feared by men as she says, I am alone and stateless. Medeas path seems to make her a sacrificial lamb for Jason, since her situation is so hopeless plundered from a grump land, I have no mother, brother In Noras case, when Torvald finds out about the borrowed money, he does not appreciate what she has done for him either, and does not ensure her as she anticipated. He overwhelms her with his reaction, not even allowing her to speak you wretched charr what have you done? He insults her by saying she has, no religion, no morality, no sense of duty. This is ironic because it is her love and sense of duty that compelled her to find out the law and borrow money in order to save his life. He rages at her, forcing her to see the reality that he only cares about himself you bust up my happinessmy future. He even asks her, do you realize what you have done to me?When Krogstad returns the bond, Torvald displays his selfishness further, and shocks Nora by declaring, Im saved But he and then insults her and demeans her position by asserting that Noras feminine helplessness made her, twice as attractive to him. Throughout this whole event Torvald exhibits his real self to Nora, amazing her by being a manifestation of selfishness and cowardice. Nora had anticipate him to be willing to sacrifice himself for her, as she had been willing to do for him. The acrid reality, however, was that Torvald was fully intending to sacrifice her to save himself.Therefore, Medea and Nora both expect a certain treatment from their husbands, which they do not get. In Medeas case, Jason knew of her sacrifices, and disdaind to acknowledge them. Torvald did not know what Nora had done for him, but when the time came, he failed her in his reaction.In this, it is obvious that Torvald and Jason are very similar. Both wish to benefit from their wives sacrifices and refuse to commend them for their evident love. Their selfishness reflects the fact that in their respective societies the men ex pected their wives to do their bidding. Jason is typically male in his reaction, accusing Medea of being sex-crazed. Torvald, likewise, is the typically middle class husband concerned only with his own position, not his wifes.Both Nora and Medea, after realizing the true characters of their husbands, seem blatantly to refuse to accept their roles as conventional dupes of male dominance, and react in their own ways. They dissemble against what was expected of them. Medeas reaction is not as astounding for an audience as Noras in my opinion, because Medea has a degree of countercurrent lust and vengefulness about her, whereas Nora had been behaving like a good wife throughout the whole play, so her reaction is more powerful.Because of Medeas character, she is, in my opinion, expected to take revenge on her husband let no one think me weak I am made of diametrical stuff. Nora does the exact opposite. She does not leave Torvald as an act of revenge, but does this for herself, as an act of self-discovery. This may again be linked to the societies the two women lived in. Medeas culture was very violent and warlike, almost primitive, whereas Noras culture was not at all violent, and offered more opportunity for her to break free.Medea declares that she will, triumph over her enemies, and murders Creon and his daughter. The use of the words triumph and enemies is rather sinister imagery, which reinforces her vengeful tactile property and masculine language. The two murders come as no surprise as that has been Medeas method of treating her enemies. Her second bout of revenge truly shocks readers, for infanticide is altogether against maternal principles. She is willing to sacrifice her own sons to torture Jason, as she coldly decides that, Jason will never see alive again the sons he had by me.Noras reaction is more modern and feminist, as she resolves that her most quasi-religious duty is the, duty to herself. She simply informs Torvald that she is leaving h im and her children. Though this may not be so controversial today (at least in the West), in Noras culture, the familys reputation would suffer greatly, and her own reputation would be almost certainly lost.Through the sacrifices the two characters willingly make for their husbands, whom they love, the two women act conventionally. After they see their husbands in their true lights, they each react in their own unconventional ways, and refuse to play the role of victim often given to women. In this, at least, they revolt totally against the stereotypes implemented by their respective patriarchal societies two thousand years apart, and behave similarly to women in more modern egalitarian societies.