One-act Plays: A Matter of Husbands

Yes, "The Bull" is a sharp satire on the feudal system of the Rana period. Satire exposes the faults of a society through humour, exaggeration and irony, and the play does exactly this to the power structure of its time.

The bull as a symbol of power. The bull is the King's pet, so it is treated as something sacred and untouchable. Its death is not a loss of an animal but a crisis of authority, because nobody dares to take responsibility for it. The officials know that the ruler's anger can destroy them.

Fear and flattery in the officials. Everyone from the village-level officer upward thinks first about saving his own skin. They hide the truth, shift blame and look for someone weaker to punish. The rulers are served by fear, not respect.

Neglect of the common people. The state spends worry and care on one animal, while the poor villagers' hunger, labour and suffering go unnoticed. The ordinary people are the ones who must bury the bull, pay the consequences and keep silent.

Absurd justice. A dead animal is treated like a matter of life and death, while real human problems have no value. This absurdity shows how unjust and irrational feudal rule was.

Through this comic but bitter picture of cowardly officials, an all-powerful master and helpless subjects, the playwright criticises the oppressive, unjust Rana-style feudal order. So the play is rightly called a satire.

In my opinion, Monsieur Durand's final step was not right, though it can be understood.

Why one can sympathise. Durand was crushed by debt, shame and despair, and he believed that the family would be better off without him. His act came from love for his children and a feeling that he had no other way out. In that sense it was a desperate sacrifice.

Why it was not right.

• Suicide is not a solution to a problem. It ends one suffering but creates another, because the children lose their father.
• Children need a parent's love, care and guidance more than money. His death left them with grief and guilt, and perhaps even deeper insecurity.
• He had other options, such as talking to the family, asking relatives and friends for help, or beginning again in some other way.
• His decision was taken in isolation and from hopelessness, not after any attempt to face the situation.

Conclusion. Durand's step shows the pitiful condition of a man defeated by circumstances, and it makes the play a tragedy. But it is a mistaken choice. A father's greatest duty is to live and fight for his family, not to leave them.

No — the play shows that an ordinary man or woman is not essentially different from an actor or actress.

In Ferenc Molnár's one-act play A Matter of Husbands, the Famous Actress proves this through her own performance. When the Earnest Young Woman comes to her in distress, believing her husband is having an affair with the actress, the Actress calmly invents a story — that the husband is merely rehearsing a play with her. She even claims the "other woman" is a character the Young Woman herself will play. The Young Woman is completely taken in and leaves grateful, even though the whole explanation is a lie.

The point is that the actress uses the same skills of pretence, role-playing and emotional manipulation that ordinary people use in daily life — the Young Woman, for instance, hides her real suspicions behind politeness. The only difference is that the actress practises deception professionally on stage, while ordinary people practise it socially. Molnár suggests that life itself is a kind of theatre, and everyone — actor or not — wears masks and plays roles. So the ordinary person and the actor are not different in kind, only in degree.

A Matter of Husbands is called a play of split personality because the main character lives two selves at the same time, a real self and a performed self.

1. Double role: The Famous Actress plays herself and, at the same time, acts out roles to suit the situation.
2. Contrasting personalities: She appears sometimes as sympathetic and sometimes as clever and calculating, and the two sides contrast sharply.
3. Role within a role: Acting is placed inside the real situation, so the audience cannot easily tell where performance ends and reality begins.
4. Reversal: The twist at the end shows that the person who seemed in control is in fact playing a part, and the other character is deceived.
5. Appearance versus reality: The play suggests that people hide behind masks, so every person has more than one personality, especially a public one and a private one.

Therefore, the play dramatises the idea of divided or multiple selves through its central characters.

In A Matter of Husbands, the letter is the evidence that sets the conflict in motion. It is the sign of a supposed affair that makes the wife suspicious and brings her to confront the Famous Actress. The Actress then uses it as a means of managing the situation, turning suspicion into a story of her own making. Through the letter the play shows the wife's gullibility and the Actress's cleverness at deception, and it helps build the dramatic irony of the plot.

Character of the Famous Actress (from Ferenc Molnár's one-act play A Matter of Husbands)

• Clever and quick-witted: She thinks on her feet. When the Earnest Young Wife accuses her of stealing her husband, the Actress at once invents the story that the husband is merely a "poor, struggling" admirer who begged her for help — turning the accusation back on the wife.
• Cunning and manipulative: She twists the truth to suit herself. By pretending that the wife's own husband came to her as a humble suppliant, she makes the wife feel ashamed and apologetic instead of suspicious.
• Confident and poised: As a celebrated stage star, she is used to attention and handles the emotional wife with calm, theatrical ease, never losing her composure.
• Self-centred and vain: She thinks mainly of protecting her own name and reputation. Her cleverness serves her own interests, not the truth.
• A skilled actress in real life too: The irony of the play is that her greatest performance is off the stage — she acts so convincingly that the wife leaves thanking her and believing in her husband's innocence.

In short, the Famous Actress is a charming, manipulative woman who uses her theatrical skill to deceive the gullible wife and protect herself.

Yes, I agree with the statement. "The Bull" shows how rulers often reward those who please them with praise and ignore those who work honestly.

In the play, flattery wins favour easily. Flatterers tell the ruler what he wants to hear, so they gain trust, position and benefits without effort. Their words feed the ruler's pride and make him feel wise and powerful. The honest and hardworking person, who speaks the truth or points out faults, appears troublesome and is pushed aside, even though his labour and wisdom would benefit the people.

This leads to bad decisions, because a ruler who hears only praise loses touch with reality. Real problems are hidden, and merit is undervalued. The play therefore satirises weak and self-centred rulers and the society that lets flatterers rise.

I think the play is right to warn us. A good leader should value honesty and hard work and be open to criticism, because flattery serves the flatterer, while honest work serves the nation.

Monsieur Durand sold his life insurance because he believed that he was close to death and needed ready money. He preferred to sell the policy for a lump sum in his lifetime, instead of leaving it to be collected after his death.

Famous Actress tries to convince Earnest Young Woman by speaking calmly and with experience, as someone who knows the man well. She shows her the other side of the husband and the faults of such a love affair, and tries to make her see that the relationship will bring her only pain and disgrace, so that she gives it up.

Monsieur Durand is the central character of Strindberg's "Facing Death". He is a poor, middle-aged father who bears the full responsibility of his family, and the play shows him under great pressure.

A loving and responsible father. Whatever else he is, Durand cares deeply about his children. Every decision he makes, including the final one, is made with their future in mind. He cannot bear to see them suffer.

A man worn down by hardship. Debts, failure in his work and the constant need for money have crushed his spirit. He is tired, anxious and often irritable, and he feels that he has failed as a provider.

Proud and secretive. He does not share his inner suffering easily. He keeps his plan to himself and faces his despair alone, which makes him isolated even in his own house.

Desperate and self-sacrificing. He sees no honourable way out of his troubles. His last act shows both his weakness, since he gives up on life, and his selflessness, since he thinks his death will help the family.

A tragic figure. Durand is not a villain. He is an ordinary man defeated by circumstances, and the audience feels pity for him. In this way he is a typical hero of modern tragedy.

If Mr. Durand had not committed suicide, he would have had to go on living with the same burden of debt, failure and shame. The family would probably have continued to struggle, and his own mental condition would have worsened, perhaps harming his relationship with the children.

But I believe he still had other options.

• Facing the problem openly. He could have talked frankly with his children and relatives, who might have helped him share the burden.
• Seeking help. He could have asked creditors for more time, arranged to pay back in small instalments, or sought help from friends and the community.
• Starting afresh. He could have changed his work, sold what was needed, moved to a cheaper place and begun again, even in a small way.
• Getting emotional support. Speaking to someone he trusted could have relieved his despair.

Life is hard but not hopeless, and a living father who struggled would have given his children something that his death could not: his love, guidance and presence. In my view, his death solved a money problem by creating a deeper human loss.

The relationship between the father and the children is one of love, but it is also strained. The father cares deeply for his children and worries about their future, while the children depend on him but do not fully understand his inner suffering.

The statement is true of "The Bull". The play shows a society in which a king's pet animal is given more importance than the people themselves.

The pet is cared for like a person. The bull belongs to the King, so it is allowed to wander freely, and nobody dares to restrain it, hurt it or even complain about it. Its welfare is treated as a public matter of the highest importance.

The people are neglected. The villagers suffer from poverty and hunger, and nobody in power takes any interest in their troubles. Their problems are invisible to the rulers, while the smallest worry about the bull sends the officials into panic.

The satire. When the bull dies, officials do not mourn the animal but fear for their own positions. They search for a scapegoat, and the common people are the ones who must bear the consequences. The ruler's pet is worth more than their lives.

Meaning. This reversal of values, where an animal is valued above human beings, makes a mockery of the feudal system. The playwright uses the bull as a symbol of the unjust power of the rulers and the helplessness of the poor, and invites readers to feel anger at such a society.

Yes, I think so. Strindberg shows Durand's hopelessness, financial ruin and loneliness in a natural, believable manner, using ordinary family life and plain speech instead of dramatic exaggeration, so the audience feels the pain of his decision and sees the despair as real.

Yes, I think "Facing Death" is a modern tragedy.

Ordinary hero. Classical tragedy deals with kings and noble heroes who fall from high places. Modern tragedy takes its hero from ordinary life. Monsieur Durand is a poor middle-class father, not a king or a warrior, and his suffering is that of common people.

Cause of the downfall. In old tragedy the hero falls because of fate or a noble flaw. Here the cause is social and economic: poverty, debt, failure and pressure from a society that offers no support. The tragedy comes from everyday realities.

Realistic setting and language. The play is set in a family home and uses simple, natural speech. There is no grand, poetic style.

Psychological depth. The focus is on the inner despair of a man, not on external action. We see his thoughts, fear and hopelessness.

Pity and the sense of loss. Like all tragedy, the play arouses pity for Durand, who is defeated while trying to protect his family, and it ends with a painful loss.

These features, an ordinary hero, a realistic setting, social causes and deep psychology, make "Facing Death" a true modern tragedy.

Earnest Young Woman blames the man involved, the Famous Actress's husband, for the love affair. She feels that he misled her and played with her feelings, so she believes he, not the actress, is to blame.

The indicators that the bull is dead are that it lies completely still, does not breathe or move, and does not respond when it is touched, pushed or prodded. Its body has become stiff and lifeless.

If I were Laxminarayan Dahal, I would act partly in the same way and partly differently.

What I would do in the same way. In a feudal system, the fear of the ruler's anger was real. Like him, I would first think about how to protect myself and the villagers from punishment, since the officer is held responsible for whatever happens in his area. I would also not announce the news carelessly without a plan.

What I would do differently. I would not blame an innocent poor villager, or force the helpless to bear the cost of a problem they did not create. I would also not lie or hide the truth to save only myself.

Instead, I would collect the facts, show that the bull died a natural death, call the village elders as witnesses, and report the matter honestly and respectfully to the higher authority. I would argue that nobody had harmed the animal.

Reason. An officer's duty is to protect the people under him, not to sacrifice them. Honesty and responsibility are better than fear and scapegoating. It takes more courage, but it is the only fair way to deal with the problem.

Yes, I would respect her, because she handles a painful and delicate situation with maturity and dignity. Even though she is famous, she listens, speaks politely and tries to settle the matter with understanding instead of anger.