2. Lovborg’s Tragedy
After discussing the tragedies in Hedda’s life, the next thing to discuss is the tragedies that happen to Lovborg. The first tragedy that happens to Lovborg
occurs in the scene where Lovborg is in desperation. This scene can be found in Act Three where the dialogue between Hedda and Lovborg occurs.
HEDDA. About the manuscript? LOVBORG. Yes. I didn’t tear it to pieces. Nor throw it into the fjord,
either.
HEDDA. Well, but – where is it, then? ....
LOVBORG. Suppose now, Hedda, that a man, along towards morning,
say, after a wild, riotous night, came home to his child’s mother and said: Look here. I have been here and there, in such-and-such places.
And I took the child with me. In such-and-such places. And I lost the child. Lost it completely. The devil knows what hands it’s fallen
into, who’s got it in his clutches.
HEDDA. Oh but, when all’s said and done, this – well, this was only a
book.
LOVBORG. Thea’s whole soul was in that book. HEDDA. Yes, I understand that.
LOVBORG. And so you understand also that there is no future before us,
her and me. pp. 343-344
Through the conversation above, it can be seen that Lovborg is in a great desperation due to the lost of his manuscript. The lost of the manuscript can be
observed through Lovborg’s long speech that tells about him “losing a child”. He tells Hedda about the lost of the script just as losing a child because the script is
very precious to him and also his partner, Elvsted. For him, without the manuscript, he becomes desperate and he feels that there is no future before him
anymore. According to the theory on tragedy, it is explained that tragedy deals with the reason why a man can suffer Gordon, 1973: 1. This scene can be
categorized as a tragedy because Lovborg feels the suffering or distress in his life
due to an event, in this case, the lost of the manuscript, that causes him to go to his downfall in his life or career.
Another tragedy that appears in Lovborg’s life can be found in the Act Four where Hedda and Brack are having a conversation.
BRACK. No. This affair of Ejlert Lovborg did not happen quite as I
described it.
HEDDA [in suspense]. Have you been keeping something back? What is
it?
BRACK. For poor Mrs. Elvsted’s sake I did make one or two slight
modifications.
HEDDA. What were they? BRACK. In the first place, he is actually dead already.
.... BRACK. It does, rather. For I must tell you Ejlert Lovborg was found shot
in – in Mademoiselle Diana’s boudoir.
HEDDA [half gets up, but sinks back again]. That’s impossible, Mr
Brack. He can’t have been there again today
BRACK. He was there this afternoon. He came to demand something that,
he said, they had taken away from him. Talked wildly about a child, that had been lost –
p. 358 Another tragedy that can be inferred through the conversation above is the death
of Lovborg. The death is caused by a gun shot to his body at Mademoiselle Diana’s boudoir. He comes to Diana’s place to make an accusation to her due to
the lost of the script because he thinks that she is the one who stole it. The real cause of Lovborg’s death is still unknown in the story, whether it is accident or
homicide. It can be noticed through the following assumption by Brack in Act Four.
BRACK. .....Both you and Mademoiselle Diana. She will have to explain
how the thing happened. Whether it was accident or homicide. ...Did he try to pull the pistol out of his pocket to threaten her? And is that
how it went off? Or did she snatch the pistol out of his hand, shoot him and put it back in his pocket again?.....
p. 361
Gordon explained in his theory that tragedy is connected to the sufferings or destruction 1973: 1. The destruction can be caused by some events, such as
crime, accident, natural catastrophe Kean, 2005: 1786. In this case, this scene can also be classified as a tragedy because there is a great destruction in
Lovborg’s life physically, which is his death, due to a crime or an accident.
C. The Contributions of Characteristics to the Tragedies
The next discussion after discussing the characteristics of the main character and identifying all the tragedies in the story is the discussion on the
contributions of characteristics to the tragedies. It is already discussed in the first chapter of the study that basically one’s personality can give an impact in life. A
personality which is pleasing has “a marketable value” that will be respected and highly prized. In other words, one’s positive personality will bring a positive
contribution to one’s life and the other people 1974: 1. On the contrary, one’s negative personality will bring a negative contribution as well. In this part, the
writer is going to give explanations on how Hedda’s characteristics that tend to be negative can bring tragedies in her own life and the other’s. The first analysis will
be Hedda’s characteristic contributions to her tragedies, and the next will be its contributions to Lovborg’s.
The first tragedy that happens in Hedda’s life is the unhappy marriage with Jorgen Tesman. The things that contribute to her unhappy marriage can be seen
through some excerpts and conditions. First of all, it can be seen through her ignorance in Act One where Tesman receives a pair of shoes which is a present
from Aunt Rina. He wants Hedda to see it by saying, “My old morning shoes. My slippers – look” p. 274, but Hedda is not interested to take a look at it and she
says, “No, thanks. It really doesn’t interest me” p. 274. The next can be observed through her ungratefulness in Act Two where Hedda is having a chit-
chat with Judge Brack about her business trip with Tesman. In the chit-chat, Hedda sighs and shows her boredom with Tesman in the business trip. She is
bored with all that Tesman did in the trip about the books, libraries, and professorship by saying, “Oh yes, quite; it is. And of course then one can – But as
for me No, my dear sir. I was excruciatingly bored.” These two characteristics are the triggers of the unhappy marriage that happens in Hedda’s life. According
to the theory of family ties and transitions which is given by Barbara H. Lemme, to have a well-maintained and long lasting marriage life, there are some elements
needed by the husband and wife. Some of them are caring, sensitivity, warmth, acceptance, and integrity. By having these kinds of elements, the marriage life
will tend to survive 1995: 262. In this case, Hedda is lacking these elements. In the situation where
Tesman shows Hedda his pair of shoes and asks her to have a look, she shows her ignorance and an uninterested expression. As a matter of fact, being ignorant is
something which is contrary to the elements needed in marriage. In other words, she does not own these personalities to maintain a good marriage life. One of
those is caring. A good wife should show her care to her husband in anything, including small things, such as showing an interest expression to what the
husband gets as represented in Hedda’s condition. Hedda has to show her interest
when Tesman asks her to look at the present as a symbol of her care to Tesman so that he does not feel disappointed.
The next is when Hedda is expressing her boredom with Tesman in the trip while she is having a conversation with Brack. In this condition, the elements that
Hedda lacks are caring and acceptance. While Tesman is doing his work in the trip, Hedda does not have any intention to put her interest expression to what
Tesman is working. It means that Hedda is doing something contradictory to the caring, which is not to care about Tesman’s work condition especially in his work.
At the same time, she also lacks an acceptance towards Tesman because she cannot be ungrateful in her marriage with Tesman. She does not want to accept
him in any aspect including his interest and his work. A marriage couple should be in a companionate relationship Lemme, 1995: 262, which means they have to
be a company that is always beside him or her and able to accept and support each other in every aspect, such as in work, career, and more. Therefore, a happy
marriage life will be maintained. Another thing that contributes to Hedda’s tragedy in her marriage life is
her rudeness to a person who is a part of Tesman’s family, Miss Tesman. It can be noticed through the situation where Miss Tesman adores and kisses Hedda as a
sign of her affection towards Hedda. Instead of respecting what Miss Tesman does, Hedda frees herself and shows her rudeness by saying, “Oh – let me go.” p.
275. Another rudeness to Miss Tesman is shown through the situation when Tesman warns Hedda to talk more affectionately to Miss Tesman, but she does
not intend to do it by saying, “No, no. You musn’t ask me to do that...” p. 277.
Kategori