FullReads

His presentiment of evil had not deceived him. The captain was beside himself; he could not understand what had happened to his wife. It was worse than religious hypocrisy.

He tore off the wrapper and read on the title page of a book in a paper cover: Et Dukkehjem af Henrik Ibsen. A Doll’s House? Well, and–? His home had been a charming doll’s house; his wife had been his little doll and he had been her big doll. They had danced along the stony path of life and had been happy. What more did they want? What was wrong? He must read the book at once and find out.

He finished it in three hours. His brain reeled. How did it concern him and his wife? Had they forged bills? No! Hadn’t they loved one another? Of course they had!

He locked himself into his cabin and read the book a second time; he underlined passages in red and blue, and when the dawn broke, he took “A well-meant little ablative on the play A Doll’s House, written by the old Pal on board the Vanadis in the Atlantic off Bordeaux. (Lat. 45 Long. 16 .)

“1. She married him because he was in love with her and that was a deuced clever thing to do. For if she had waited until she had fallen in love with someone, it might have happened that he would not have fallen in love with her, and then there would have been the devil to pay. For it happens very rarely that both parties are equally in love.”

“2. She forges a bill. That was foolish, but it is not true that it was done for the husband’s sake only, for she has never loved him; it would have been the truth if she had said that she had done it for him, herself and the children. Is that clear?”

“3. That he wants to embrace her after the ball is only a proof of his love for her, and there is no wrong in that; but it should not be done on the stage. “Il y a des choses qui se font mais que ne se disent point,’ as the French say, Moreover, if the poet had been fair, he would also save shown an opposite case. ‘La petite chienne veut, mais le grand chien ne veut pas,’ says Ollendorf. (Vide the long boat at Dalaro.)”

“4. That she, when she discovers that her husband is a fool (and that he is when he offers to condone her offence because it has not leaked out) decides to leave her children ‘not considering herself worthy of bringing them up,’ is a not very clever trick of coquetry. If they have both been fools (and surely they don’t teach at the seminary that it is right to forge bills) they should pull well together in future in double harness.”

“Least of all is she justified in leaving her children’s education in the hands of the father whom she despises.”

“5. Nora has consequently every reason for staying with her children when she discovers what an imbecile her husband is.”

“6. The husband cannot be blamed for not sufficiently appreciating her, for she doesn’t reveal her true character until after the row.”

“7. Nora has undoubtedly been a fool; she herself does not deny it.”

“8. There is every guarantee of their pulling together more happily in future; he has repented and promised to turn over a new leaf. So has she. Very well! Here’s my hand, let’s begin again at the beginning. Birds of a feather flock together. There’s nothing lost, we’ve both been fools! You, little Nora, were badly brought up. I, old rascal, didn’t know any better. We are both to be pitied. Pelt our teachers with rotten eggs, but don’t hit me alone on the head. I, though a man, am every bit as innocent as you are! Perhaps even a little more so, for I married for love, you for a home. Let us be friends, therefore, and together teach our children the valuable lesson we have learnt in the school of life.”