The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen
Author(s): Joan Templeton
Source: PMLA, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 28-40
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/462329
Accessed: 30-03-2015 14:03 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOAN TEMPLETON
Feminism,
andIbsen
Criticism,
The DollHouseBacklash:
A Doll House' is no moreabout women'srightsthan
HIis aboutthedivineright
Richard
of kings,
Shakespeare's
or Ghostsabout syphilis.. . . Its themeis theneed of
more. She embodies the comedyas well as the
tragedyof modernlife"(vii). In theModernLanA Doll
guageAssociation's
Approachesto Teaching
everyindividualto findout thekindof personhe or she
House, theeditorspeaksdisparagingly
of "reducis and to striveto becomethatperson.
tionistviews of [A Doll House] as a feminist
(M. Meyer457)
drama."Summarizing
a "majortheme"inthevolumeas "theneedfora broadviewof theplayand
BSEN HAS BEEN resoundingly
saved from
a condemnationof a staticapproach,"she warns
feminism,
or,as it was called in his day,"the
thatdiscussionsoftheplay's"connection
withfemwoman question." His rescuers customarily
inism" have value only if theyare monitored,
citea statement
thedramatist
madeon 26 May 1898
"properlychanneledand keptfirmly
linkedto Ibat a seventieth-birthday
banquetgivenin hishonor
sen'stext"(Shafer,Introduction32).
by the Norwegian Women's Rights League:
Removingthe woman question fromA Doll
to
effort
House is presentedas partof a corrective
I thankyouforthetoast,butmustdisclaimthehonorof
as a writer
freeIbsenfromhiserroneousreputation
havingconsciouslyworkedforthewomen'srightsmoveof thesis plays, a wrongheadednotion usually
ment. ... True enough, it is desirableto solve the
saw
blamedon Shaw,who,itis claimed,mistakenly
womanproblem,along withall theothers;butthathas
Ibsenas thenineteenth
iconoclast
century's
greatest
not been the whole purpose. My task has been the
and offeredthatmisreadingto the publicas The
descriptionof humanity.
(Ibsen, Letters337)
Quintessenceof Ibsenism. Ibsen, it is now de
rigueur
to explain,didnotstoopto "issues."He was
Ibsen'schampionsliketo takethisdisavowalas a
a poetof thetruthof thehumansoul. ThatNora's
precisereference
to his purposein writing
A Doll
exitfromherdollhousehas longbeentheprincipal
House twenty
yearsearlier,
his"originalintention,"
international
symbolforwomen'sissues,including
accordingto Maurice Valency(151). Ibsen's bimanythat far exceed the confinesof her small
ographerMichaelMeyerurgesall reviewers
ofDoll
to theessentialmeaningof A
world,2is irrelevant
House revivalsto learn Ibsen's speech by heart
Doll House, a play,in RichardGilman'sphrase,
(774), and JamesMcFarlane,editorof TheOxford
"pitchedbeyondsexualdifference"
(65). Ibsen,exIbsen,includesitin hisexplanatory
materialon A
plainsRobertBrustein,"was completelyindifferDoll House, under"Some Pronouncements
of the
entto [thewomanquestion]exceptas a metaphor
Author,"as thoughIbsenhad beenspeakingofthe
forindividualfreedom"(105). Discussingtherelaplay (456). Whateverpropaganda feministsmay
tionofA Doll House to feminism,
Halvdan Koht,
have made of A Doll House, Ibsen, it is argued,
authorof thedefinitive
NorwegianIbsenlife,says
nevermeantto writea playabout thehighlytopiin summary,
"Littlebylittlethetopicalcontroversy
cal subject of women's rights;Nora's conflict
diedaway;whatremainedwastheworkofart,with
representssomethingother than, or something
itsdemandfortruthineveryhumanrelation"(323).
morethan,woman's.In an articlecommemorating
Thus,itturnsout,theUncleTom'sCabin ofthe
thehalfcentury
of Ibsen'sdeath,R. M. Adamsexwomen's rightsmovementis not really about
plains,"A Doll House represents
a womanimbued
womenat all. "Fiddle-faddle,"pronouncedR. M.
withtheidea of becominga person,butitproposes
Adams, dismissingfeministclaims for the play
nothingcategoricalabout womenbecomingpeo(416).Likeangels,Norahas no sex.Ibsenmeanther
ple; in fact,itsrealthemehas nothingto do withthe
to be Everyman.3
sexes"(416).Overtwenty
yearslater,afterfeminism
had resurfaced
as an international
movement,
EiThe Demon in theHouse
narHaugen,thedoyenofAmericanScandinavian
studies,insistedthat "Ibsen's Nora is not just a
of Eve.
[Norais] a daughter
[A]nirresistibly
bewomanarguingforfemaleliberation;she is much
witching
pieceoffemininity. [Her]chargethatin
J
28
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
29
In a classic 1925 study,Weigandlabors through
forty-nine
pages to demonstratethat Ibsen conceivedof Nora as a silly,lovablefemale.At thebeginning,Weigandconfesses,he was, likeall men,
momentarily
shakenbytheplay: "Havinghad the
misfortune
to be bornofthemalesex,weslinkaway
The a prioridismissalof women'srightsas the
in shame, vowing to mend our ways." The
backlash, chastenedcritic'sremorseis short-lived,
subjectofA Doll House is a gentlemanly
as
however,
ofa tiresome a "clear male voice,
theexistence
a refusalto acknowledge
irreverently
breakingthe sireality,
"thehoaryproblemof women'srights,"as
lence,"stunswithitscriticalacumen:"'The meanMichael Meyerhas it (457); theissue is decidedly ingofthefinalscene,'thevoicesays,'is epitomized
vieuxjeu, and itsimportancehas been greatlyex- by Nora's remark:"Yes, Torvald. Now I have
aggerated.In Ibsen'stimelessworldof Everyman, changedmydress.""' Withthisepiphanyas guide,
questionsof gendercan onlybe tediousintrusions. Weigandspendsthenightporingoverthe"littlevolBut forovera hundredyears,Nora has beenunume." Dawn arrives,bringing
withitthereturnof
the mostperfidious "masculine
der directsiegeas exhibiting
self-respect"
(26-27). Forthereis only
of hersex;theoriginaloutcryofthe
characteristics
one explanationfortherevoltof "thiswinsomelit1880sis swollennowto a mightychorusof blame.
tlewoman" (52) and herchildishdoor slamming:
nar- Ibsen meantA Doll
and frivolous
She is denouncedas an irrational
House as comedy.Nora's era vain,
cissist;an "abnormal"woman,a "hysteric";
raticbehaviorat thecurtain'sfallleavesus laughunlovingegoist who abandons her familyin a
ingheartily,
forthereis no doubtthatshewillreturn
ofthelast
of selfishness.
The proponents
paroxysm
hometo "revert,
imperceptibly,
to herroleof songview would seem to thinkIbsen had in mind a
birdand charmer"(68). Afterall, sinceNora is
housewifeMedea, whose crueltyto husbandand
childrenhetailoreddownto fittheframed,domes- an
irresistibly
an extravabewitching
pieceof femininity,
tic worldof realistdrama.
gantpoetand romancer,
utterly
lackingin senseof fact,
The firstattackswerelaunchedagainstNora on
and endowedwitha naturalgiftforplay-acting
which
on
moral groundsand againstIbsen, ostensibly,
makesherinstinctively
dramatizeherexperiences:how
ofthepre- can thesettlement
"literary"ones. The outragedreviewers
failof a fundamentally
comicappeal?
miereclaimedthatA Doll House didnothaveto be
(64)
takenas a seriousstatement
about women'srights
The mostpopularwayto renderNora inconsebecause theheroineof act 3 is an incomprehensiquentialhas beento attackhermorality;whatever
ble transformation
of theheroineof acts 1 and 2.
haveremained
This reasoningprovidedan ideal way to dismiss thevocabularyused,thearguments
muchthe same forovera century.Oswald CrawNora altogether;nothingshe said needed to be
Reviewin 1891,
ford,writingin the Fortnightly
takenseriously,and herdoor slammingcould be
as dollwrittenoffas sillytheatrics(Markerand Marker scoldedthatwhileNora maybe "charming
womenmaybe charming,"she is "unprincipled"
85-87).
(732). A halfcenturylater,afterFreudianismhad
The argumentforthetwoNoras,whichstillreproduceda widelyaccepted"clinical"languageof
mains popular,4has had its mostdetermineddedisapproval,Nora could be called "abnormal."
fenderin the NorwegianscholarElse H0st, who
MaryMcCarthylistsNora as one ofthe"neurotic"
charming"lark"could
arguesthatIbsen'scarefree,
womenwhomIbsen,shecuriouslyclaims,was the
neverhavebecomethe"newlyfledgedfeminist."
In
to put on stage(80). For Maurice
any case it is the "childish,expectant,ecstatic, firstplaywright
Valency,Nora is a case studyof femalehysteria,
a
broken-hearted
Nora" who makesA Doll House
immortal(28; mytrans.);theotherone,theunfeel- willful,unwomanlywoman: "Nora is a carefully
ingwomanof act 3 who coldlyanalyzestheflaws studiedexampleof whatwe havecometo knowas
in her marriage,is psychologically
unconvincing thehysterical
personality-bright,
unstable,impuland whollyunsympathetic.
ofguilt,
sive,romantic,
quiteimmunefromfeelings
The most unrelentingattempton record to
and, at bottom,notespeciallyfeminine"(151-52).
More recentassaultson Nora havearguedthat
and a favorite
trivializeIbsen'sprotagonist,
source
forNora'slaterdetractors,
to obtainthe moneyto save herhusis HermannWeigand's.5 her forgery
all theyearsof theirmarriagetheyhaveneverexchanged
shehas
one seriouswordaboutseriousthingsis incorrect:
howseriously
Torvaldlecturedheron the
quiteforgotten
subjectsof forgery
and lyingless thanthreedaysago.
(Weigand27, 64-65)
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30
and Ibsen
Feminism,
The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
and egotism.
band's lifeprovesherirresponsibility
condemnsNora'sloveas "unintelBrianJohnston
ligent" and her crime as "a trivialact which
nevertheless
turnsto evilbecauseitrefusedto take
at all"
theuniversal
ethicalrealmintoconsideration
(97); Ibsen uses Torvald'sfamouspet names for
Nora-lark, squirrel-togivehera "strong'animal'
identity"and to underscoreherinabilityto understandtheethicalissuesfacedbyhumanbeings(97).
EvertSprinchorn
arguesthatNora had onlyto ask
herhusband'skindlyfriends
(entirely
missingfrom
"
.
theplay)forthenecessary
money: . . anyother
womanwouldhavedone so. ButNora knewthatif
sheturnedto one of Torvald'sfriendsforhelp,she
would have had to share her role of saviorwith
someoneelse" (124).
EvenNora'ssweettoothis evidenceofherunworthe
thiness,as wesee her"surreptitiously
devouring
forbidden[by her husband] macaroons," even
macaroonsto Doctor Rank,
"brazenlyoffer[ing]
and finallylyingin herdenialthatthemacaroons
arehers";eatingmacaroonsin secretsuggeststhat
fromthestart"
"Nora is deceitful
and manipulative
and that her exitthus "reflectsonly a petulant
woman'sirresponsibility"
(Schlueter
64-65).As she
eats the cookies, Nora adds insultto injuryby
declaringherhiddenwishto say "deathand damacnation"in frontofherhusband,thusrevealing,
cording to Brian Downs, of Christ's College,
Cambridge,"somethinga triflefebrileand morbid" in hernature(Downs 130).
with
Much has beenmadeof Nora'srelationship
Doctor Rank,thesurestproof,itis argued,of her
Nora is revealedas la belledame sans
dishonesty.
merciwhenshe"suggestively
queriesRankwhether
a pairof silkstockingswillfither" (Schlueter65);
she "flirtscruellywith[him]and toyswithhis affectionforher,drawinghim on to findout how
strongherhold overhimactuallyis" (Sprinchorn
124).
Nora'sdetractors
haveoftenbeen,fromthefirst,
her husband's defenders.In an argumentthat
claimsto rescueNora and Torvaldfrom"thecamofwomen"so thatthey"bepaignfortheliberation
comevividand disturbingly
real."EvertSprinchorn
pleads thatTorvald"has givenNora all thematerial thingsand all the sexual attentionthat any
youngwifecouldreasonablydesire.He lovesbeautifulthings,and not least his prettywife" (121).
Nora is incapableof appreciating
herhusbandbecause she "is nota normalwoman.She is compulsive,highlyimaginative,
and verymuchinclinedto
Sinceitis shewhohas acquiredthe
go to extremes."
moneyto save his life,Torvald,and not Nora, is
reallythe "wifein the family,"althoughhe "has
regardedhimselfas thebreadwinner
. . . themain
supportof hiswifeand children,
as anydecenthusbandwouldliketo regardhimself"(122).In another
defense,JohnChamberlainarguesthat Torvald
deservesoursympathy
becauseheis no "merecomIfNorawerelesstheacmonorgardenchauvinist."
tressWeigandhas provedherto be, "thewomanin
hermightobservewhattheembarrassingly
naive
feminist
overlooksor ignores,namely,theindicationsthatTorvald,forall hisfaults,is takingherat
least as seriouslyas he can-and perhapsevenas
seriouslyas she deserves"(85).
All female,or no womanat all,Noraloseseither
way.Frivolous,deceitful,
or unwomanly,
shequalifiesneitheras a heroinenoras a spokeswomanfor
feminism.Her famous exit embodies only "the
latest and shallowest notion of emancipated
womanhood,abandoningherfamily
to go outinto
theworldin searchof 'hertrueidentity"'(Freedman4). And in anycase,itis onlynaiveNora who
believesshemightmakea lifeforherself;"theaudience,"arguesan essayistin CollegeEnglish,"can
see mostclearlyhowNora is exchanginga practical doll'sroleforan impractical
one" (Pearce343).
We areback to thehighcondescensionof theVictoriansand EdwardDowden:
Inquiriesshould be set on footto ascertainwhethera
manuscriptmaynot lurkin some house in Christiania
[Oslo] entitledNora Helmer'sReflections
inSolitude;it
wouldbe a documentof singularinterest,
and probably
wouldconcludewiththewords,"TomorrowI returnto
Torvald;havebeenexactlyone weekaway;shallinsiston
a freewoman'srightto unlimitedmacaroonsas testof
his reform."
(248)
In thefirst
headydaysofA Doll House Norawas
rendered
powerless
bysubstituted
denouements
and
sequels thatsentherhome to her husband.Now
Nora'scriticstakethehigh-handed
positionthatall
thefusswas unnecessary,
sinceNora is nota feministheroine.And yetin thetwentieth-century
case
againsther,whether
Norais judgedchildish,"neurotic,"or unprincipled
and whetherheraccuser's
tone is one of wittyderision,clinicalsobriety,
or
moralearnestness,
thepurposebehindtheverdict
remainsthatof Nora'sfrightened
contemporaries:
to destroyhercredibility
and poweras a representativeofwomen.The demoninthehouse,themod-
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
ern"half-woman,"as Strindberg
called herin the
prefaceto Miss Julie,who,"now thatshehas been
discoveredhas begunto makea noise" (65), must
be silenced,herhereticalforcesdestroyed,
so that
A Doll House can emergea safe classic,rescued
fromfeminism,
and Ibsencan assumehis place in
the pantheon of true artists,unsullied by the
''womanquestion"and thetopicaltaintof history.
31
Second,implicitin theargument
thatwouldrescue A Doll House fromfeminist
"ideology"is an
emphaticgender-determined
ideologywhosebase
is startlingly
tautological.Women'srights,it is
claimed,is not a fitsubjectfortragedyor poetry,
because it is insufficiently
to be
representative
generallyand thusliterarily
human.Now,ifthisis
so, theexplanationcan onlybe thatmen,who alreadypossesstherightswomenseek,areexcluded
The High Claims of Artand Tautology:
fromthe femalestruggle,which is, precisely,a
"BeyondFeminism"to Men
forequalitywiththem.In otherwords,bestruggle
causethesexesdo notshareinequality,
woman'sdesire
to
be
cannot
be
equal
The
representative.
Nora:I don'tbelieveinthatanymore.
(193)
nonsenseof the tautologyis doubled when this
Nora:Det trorjeg ikkelengerpa.
is appliedto theliterary
(111) reasoning
text;forifthelife
ofa femaleprotagonist
is worthy
ofourcriticaland
The universalist
criticsofA Doll House makethe moralattentiononlyinsofaras it is unrelatedto
familiarclaimthattheworkcan be no moreabout
women'sinferiorstatus,and ifthetextitselfis art
womenthanmenbecausetheinterests
of bothare
onlyto theextentthatwhattheheroineis seeking
thesame "human"ones; sexis irrelevant,
and thus transcendshersexualidentity,
thenwhathappens
in the literarysearchforthe to heris significant
gendernonexistent,
onlyto the extentthatit can
and obliterates
self,whichtranscends
merebiolog- happento a man as well.Whateveris universalis
ical and social determinations.
Faced witha textin
male.ThismeansthatNora Helmerand suchother
which the protagonistrejects the nonself she
famous nineteenth-century
heroines as Emma
describesas a doll,theplaything
of herfatherand
Bovary, Anna Karenina, Hester Prynne, and
husband,wemusttakecarenotto letfeminism,
the DorotheaBrookecouldjustas wellbe men-except
properconcernof pamphletsor, perhaps,thesis fortheirsex,ofcourse.And,as DorothySayersreplays,getinthewayofart:"Ibsen'scase is stronger, minds us in her essay "The Human-Not-Quitenotweaker,ifwedon'tletthetragedydisappearin
Human,"womenare,afterall, "morelikementhan
polemics about women's rights" (Reinert62).
anythingelse in theworld" (142). But to say that
Nora'sdramacan be poetryonlyifitgoes"beyond" Nora Helmerstandsfortheindividualin searchof
feminism.
hisor herself,besidesbeinga singularly
unhelpful
The firstpointto makehereis thattheargument and platitudinousgeneralization,
is wrong,ifnot
in itselfis a fineexampleof "beggingthequestion": absurd.ForitmeansthatNora'sconflicthas essenthe overwhelmingly
deductivereasoning,while tially nothing to do with her identityas a
neverlaid out,is thatsincetrueartcannotbe about
nineteenth-century
marriedwoman, a married
feminism
and sinceA Doll House is trueart,then woman,or a woman. Yet both Nora and A Doll
A Doll House cannotbe aboutfeminism.
The con- House are unimaginableotherwise.
clusion restson the assumptionthat "women's
Ifthispointneedsillustrating,
letus examinethe
rights"(along with,one mustsuppose,all other popularargument
byanalogythatA Doll House is
strugglesforhumanrightsin whichbiologicalor
"no moreabout women'srightsthan Ghosts [is]
socialidentity
figures
is too limitedto
prominently)
about syphilis"(besidesM. Meyer457,see Adams
be thestuffofliterature.
The "state"ofbeinga fem- 415-16and Le Galliennexxiv).Wewillremovefrom
inistis viewedas an uninteresting
given,something Ghoststhedated diseasethatpenicillinhas made
a womanis, not somethingshe becomes,a condi- merely
topical(at leastinthemedicalsense)and astionsuitableto flatcharactersin flat-heeled
shoes signCaptainAlvingand hisson, Oswald,another
and outsidetherealmof art,whichtreatsuniver- fatalmalady-say, tuberculosis.Both the horror
sal questionsof humanlife,whosenatureis com- and themarvelousaptnessof thevenerealdisease,
plex and evolutionary.Restrictedto works as
one of Ibsen'sgrimjokes, are lost(Helene Alving
predictableas propaganda, "feminist"heroines fledtheman she lovedto returnto "love" theone
mustspringfromtheircreators'heads fullyarmed sheloathed,and thediseasedOswald is theconsewithpamphlets.
quence),buttheendis thesame: thechildinherits
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32
The Doll House Backlash: Criticism,Feminism,and Ibsen
thefather'sdoom. Now letus removethe"woman
problem"fromA Doll House; letus giveNora Helmerthesamerightsas TorvaldHelmer,and lethim
considerherhisequal. Whatis leftoftheplay?The
onlyhonestresponseis nothing,forifwe emancipate Nora, freeherfromthedollhouse,thereis no
play;or,rather,
thereis theresolutionof theplay,
theconfrontation
betweenhusbandand wifeand
theonlycrisisand denouement
theexitthatfollows,
thatcould properlyconcludetheaction.As Ibsen
explained,"I mighthonestlysaythatitwas forthe
sakeof thelastscenethatthewholeplaywas written" (Letters300).
And to readthesceneis to meetwitha compenthat earlymodernfeminism
dium of everything
denouncedabout woman'sstate.When Nora accusesherfatherand husbandof havingcommitted
heras ifshewere
a greatsinagainstherbytreating
of
a playmate,she providesa textbookillustration
Wollstonecraft's
major chargein the Vindication,
thatwomenare broughtup to be "pleasingat the
expenseof everysolidvirtue"as iftheywere"gentle,domesticbrutes"(Goulianos 142). When she
describesherselfas a doll wifewho has lived"by
doingtricks"(191; "a gj0rekunster"110),she is a
flawlessexampleof MargaretFuller'schargethat
man "wantsno woman,butonlya girlto playball
with"(Rossi167).Whensherealizesthatsheis unfit
to do anything
in lifeand announcesherremedy"I haveto tryto educatemyself"(192; "Jegma se
a oppdramegselv" 111)-she expressesnineteenthcenturyfeminism's
universallyagreed-uponbase
forwomen'semancipation;in tellingTorvaldshe
does not know how to be his wife,she mightbe
paraphrasingHarrietMartineauin "On Female
Education,"whicharguesthenecessityof rearing
womento be "companionsto meninsteadof playwhen
thingsor servants"(Rossi 186).And finally,
Noradiscovers
thatshehas dutieshigherthanthose
of a "wifeand mother"(193;"hustruog mor" 111),
obligationsshe namesas "dutiesto myself"(193;
"plikteneimot meg selv" 111),she is voicingthe
mostbasic of feminist
principles:thatwomenno
naless thanmenpossessa moraland intellectual
tureand havenotonlya rightbuta dutyto develop
it:"thegrandendoftheirexertions
shouldbe to unfoldtheirown faculties"(Wollstonecraft;
qtd. in
Goulianos 149).
Ibsen'scontemporaries,
thesophisticated
as well
as the crude, recognizedA Doll House as the
clearestand most substantialexpressionof the
"twomanquestion"thathad yetappeared.In Eu-
ropeand America,fromthe 1880son, thearticles
poured forth:"Der Noratypus,""Ibsen und die
Frauenfragen,"
"Ibsenetla femme,""La representationfeministe
et socialed'Ibsen," "A Prophetof
theNewWomanhood,""Ibsen as a Pioneerofthe
WomanMovement."Thesearea smallsamplingof
titlesfromscholarsandjournalistswhoagreedwith
Lou Andreas
theirmorefamouscontemporaries
Salome, Alla Nazimova,GeorgBrandes,and AugustStrindberg,
along witheveryotherwriteron
Ibsen,whetherin theimportantdailiesand weeklies or in thehighbrowand lowbrowreviews,
that
thethemeof A Doll House was thesubjectionof
womenbymen.6
HavelockEllis,filledwitha youngman'sdreams
and inspiredbyNora,proclaimedthatsheheldout
nothingless than"thepromiseof a newsocial order."In 1890,elevenyearsafterBettyHenningsas
Nora firstslammedthe shakeybackdropdoor in
what
Copenhagen'sRoyalTheatre,he summarized
A Doll House meantto theprogressives
of Ibsen's
time:
The greatwaveof emancipationwhichis now sweeping
acrossthecivilizedworldmeansnominally
nothingmore
thanthatwomenshouldhavetherightto education,freedom to work,and politicalenfranchisement-nothing
in
shortbutthebareordinary
ofan adulthumancrearights
turein a civilizedstate.
(9)
in itsday,A Doll House reProfoundly
disturbing
mainsso stillbecause,in JamesHuneker'ssuccinct
analysis,itis "theplea forwomanas a humanbeing,neithermorenorlessthanman,whichthedramatistmade" (275).
WishfulReading:The Critic,theHeroine,
and Her Master'sVoice
Torvald:You stayrighthereand givemea reckoning.
You
understand
whatyou'vedone?Answer!Youunderstand?
(A Doll House 187)
Torvald:Her blirdu og starmegtilregnskap.Forstardu
hva du har gjort?Svar meg! Forstardu det?
(Et Dukkehjem108)
It is easy to answerNora's zealous critics,who
seemalmostwillfully
wrong;beingsillyor "frivolous" is, afterall, essentialto the role of addlebraineddoll thatNora playsin themarriage.And
how frivolouswas it to saveTorvald'slife?Nora's
criticsconveniently
thebottomlineofNora's
forget
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
"crime":Torvaldwouldhavedied ifNora had not
illhusthegravely
forged.Phobicaboutborrowing,
bandrefuses
to takeouta loan and so mustbe saved
in spiteof himself.ThatNora'slifesaving
deed was
a crimeis theveryfoundation
of Ibsen'sconflict
betweenlaw and love;a good case could be made for
Nora as a bourgeoisAntigonein herstalwartdefiance oftheworld:"A wifehasn'ta rightto saveher
husband'slife?I don'tknowmuchaboutlaws. .
I did itout of love" (149; "Skulleikkeen hustruha
retttil'a reddesin mannsliv? Jegkjennerikkelovenesa noye.. . Jeggjordedetjo av kjoerlighet"
thatNora is notsufficiently
84). The argument
appreciativeof herhusband'sfondattentionsis perhaps bestcounteredbyquotingVeblen;notingthe
commoncomplaintagainstthenewwoman,that
she "is pettedby her husband . . . [and] surroundedbythemostnumerousand delicateattentions[yet]she is not satisfied,"he pointsout that
the"thingswhichtypically
arecitedas advantages"
areprecisely
thosethatmakeup woman'sgrievance
(357-58). As for the secretmacaroon eating,it
hardlyseems a moral issue, and in any case this
household convention dramatizes the modus
vivendiof theHelmermarriage,in whichNora is
expectedto practicecookie-jar trickeriesin the
gamebetweenthestrong,wise,put-uponhusband
and theweak,childlikewife.The argument
thatIbsenblackensNorainthefamoussilk-stocking
scene
withDoctorRank,whichso dismayedEva Le Galliennethatshe simplyomittedit fromhertranslation,seemsbothprudishand resolutely
determined
to ignoreIbsen'spurposes.Nora, withoutreflectingon thesignificance
ofherfeeling,
quitenaturally
prefersthe companyof the understandingand
amusingdoctorto thatof herhusband:"Yes,you
see," Nora blithelytosses off,as she and Rank
speak of theirease together,
"Therearesomepeople thatone lovesmostand otherpeople thatone
wouldalmostpreferbeingwith"(166; "Ja,serDe,
dererjo noenmennesker
sommanholdermestav,
og andremennesker
som mannestenhelstvilvere
sammenmed" 95). It is Rank who willbe herreal
audienceat thedancingof thetarantella:"youcan
imaginethenthatI'm dancingonlyforyou-yes,
and ofcourseforTorvald,too-that's understood"
(164; "og da skal De forestille
Dem at jeg gjor det
bareforDeresskyld,-ja, og sa naturligvis
forTorvalds;-det forstar
seg" 93). It is notsurprising
that
Rankprovidesa perfectpiano accompaniment
for
Nora's famouspracticesessionand thatTorvaldis
perturbed:"Rank, stop! This is pure madness!"
33
(174;"Rank,holdopp; detteerjo denrenegalskap"
I think,toguess
99). Itwouldnotbe too speculative,
thatRank,unlikeTorvald,wouldnotneedto fantasizethatNora is a virginbeforemakinglove to
her.Throughthesilk-stocking
scene,Ibsen shows
the sexual side of the Helmermesalliance,a side
Nora scarcelysees herself.And itsendingproves,
butheressential
notherdishonesty,
indisputably,
herwithhis
honorableness.WhenRankconfronts
ofloveas sheis aboutto ask him
movingconfession
forthemoneyshedesperately
needs,sherefusesto
makeuse of hisfeelings
and categorically
rejectshis
help: "Afterthat? . . . You can't knowanything
now" (166; "Efterdette?. . . Ingenting
kanDe fa
vitenu" 94).
The claimthatNora cannotbe a feminist
heroinebecausesheis flawedis an exampleof question
beggingsimilarto theuniversalists'
that
argument
A Doll House is nota feminist
because
femiplay
nismis ipso factoan unworthy
subjectof art.Nora
fallsshortaccordingto unnamed,"self-evident"
criteriafora feminist
heroine,amongwhichwould
seemto be one, some,or all of the following:an
ever-present
a calm,unexcitserious-mindedness;
able temperament;
an unshakableobedienceto the
letterofthelaw,evenifitmeansthedeathofa husband; perfect sincerityand honesty; and a
selflessness.
ForA Doll House to be
thoroughgoing
itwould,apparently,
feminist,
haveto be a kindof
fourth-wall morality play with a saintly
Everyfeminist
as heroine,not thisignorant,excitable,confused,and desperate-inshort,humanNora Helmer.
ButwhileNorais too flawedto represent
women,
theargumentstopsshortand thecase is curiously
alteredin theclaimthatshe represents
humanbeings.Nora'shumanity
keepsherfromrepresenting
women but not, magically,from representing
people-namelymen,and womento theextent
that
whathappensto themcan happento menas wellsurelyas fabulousan exampleof criticalreasoning
as we can imagine,and yet one that is found
everywhere.
This strangeand illogicalstancehas itsparallel
fornonsensein a knottycriticalconundrum:if
Nora is a frivolousand superficialwoman who
leavesherhusbandon a whim,thenA Doll House
qualifiesas a pieceofrathershoddyboulevardisme;
if Nora is abnormal,a case study,thenA Doll
House is an example of reductivelaboratory
naturalism;if Nora is a self-serving
egoistwhose
unbridledthirstforpowerdestroyshermarriage,
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34
and Ibsen
TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
thenA Doll House is melodrama,withNora as villain and Torvaldas victim,and act 3 is eitheran incomprehensiblebore or the most ponderously
unsuccessfulinstanceof dramaticironyin thehistoryof the theater.But Nora's criticshave not
claimedthatA Doll House belongsto anyinferior
subgenre.Applaudingit as a finedrama,theyengage in side attackson its protagonist,
snipingat
Nora to discreditherargumentsand ignoringthe
implicationsof theirown.
ofthisattack,whileneveracThe incompleteness
knowledged,is easilyexplained.To destroyNora's
identity
as wifeand womanhercriticswouldhave
theplay;inthewordsofJonathan
to "deconstruct"
Culler'susefuldefinition,
theywouldhaveto show
itasserts,
thephilosophy
howthetext"undermines
which
it relies"
or thehierarchical
oppositionson
examine
what
Nora
(86). Theywouldhaveto
says
in act 3 about herhusband,hermarriage,and her
lifeand demonstratethat her unequivocalstatementsare contestedby the text.Since the textin
Norawouldmean
questionis a play,deconstructing
arguingthesignificance-theinterest,
worth,and
the
of
the
importance-of part
dialogueIbsengives
Nora's foil,thatis, herhusband.It is nota matter
of absolvingTorvaldof villainy,as some of his
defendersseem to thinkit is; Ibsen was not interestedin theconflictof melodrama,and in any
case poor Torvaldis obviouslynot "evil." It is a
matterof showingthathisassertionsseriouslycall
the statementsof his
into question,delegitimize,
wife.Not surprisingly,
no one has yetrisento this
challenge,forwhileTorvaldHelmerhas had his
as we have seen,none of themhas
sympathizers,
thatIbsenwasofTorvald'spartywithout
suggested
knowingitor thatTorvaldcouldbe Ibsen's,or anyone else's,raisonneurin anymodestlyenlightened
universeof theWesternworld.It would be an intrepidcriticindeedwhocouldseriouslyupholdthe
position of a man who says to his wife,"Your
father'sofficialcareerwas hardlyabove reproach.
But mineis" (160; "Din farvar ingenuangripelig
embedsmann.Men det erjeg" 90) or "For a man
there'ssomethingindescribably
sweetand satisfyingin knowinghe's forgiven
his wife....
[I]n a
her
sense,he'sgiven freshintotheworldagain,and
she's become his wifeand his childas well" (190;
"Det erforen mannnoe sa ubeskrivelig
sottog tili dette'avitemedsegselvat han har
fredssstillende
tilgittsin hustru. ... han har liksomsatthenne
inni verdenpa ny;hunerpa enm'ateblittbade hans
hustruog hans barn tillike" 109-10). In fact,a
chargefrequently
leveledagainstA Doll House is
thatthehusbandseemstoo vainto be true,"an egoistof suchdimensions,"in HalvdanKoht'sphrase,
"thatwecan hardlytakehimseriously"(319).And
yetthe accusationsagainstNora restateher husband's;thechargesrangefromfrivolousness,
made
whenTorvaldis annoyedat whathe thinksareher
spendthrift
habits ("What are those littlebirds
calledthatalwaysflythrough
theirfortunes?"
[127;
"Hva er detde fuglekallessom alltidsetterpenge
overstyr?"70]),to deceitfulness,
whenhe learnsof
hersecretloan to save his life(". . . a hypocrite,
a liar-worse, worse-a criminal"[187; ". . . en
hyklerske,en lognerske,-verre,verre,-en forbryterske!"
108]),to selfishness
and thusunwomanliness,when he hears her decision to leave him
("Abandon yourhome,yourhusband,yourchildren.. . . Beforeall elseyou'rea wifeand mother"
[192-93;"Forlateditthjem,dinmannog dineborn!
. . . Du er forstog fremst
hustruog mor" 111]).
Amusedor angry,thehusband'saccusingvoiceis
so authoritative
thatin spiteofTorvald'sunworthiness as moral spokesman,Nora's critics,in a
thoroughgoing
and, one supposes, unconscious
identification,
parrothisjudgmentsand thusread
herthroughhiseyes.TheirNora is Torvald'sNora,
a criticalperspective
thatresembles
takingOthello's
wordon Desdemona.
WishfulIntention:Or, What Ibsen Is
Supposed to Have Meant
Bernick:People shouldn'talwaysbe thinkingof themselvesfirst,especiallywomen. (Pillars of Society57)
Bernick:Menneskeneb0rda ikkei f0rsterekketenkepa
seg selv,og allerminstkvinnene.
(SamfundetsSt0tten32)
Anyonewho claimsthatIbsenthoughtof Nora
as a silly,hysterical,
or selfishwomanis eitherignoringor misrepresenting
theplaintruth,present
fromthe earliestto the most recentbiographies,
that Ibsen admired,even adored, Nora Helmer.
Amongall hischaracters,
shewas theone he liked
bestand foundmostreal.Whileworking
on A Doll
House, he announcedto SuzannahIbsen,hiswife,
"I've justseenNora. She camerightoverto meand
put her hand on myshoulder."The quick-witted
Suzannah repliedat once, "What was she wearing?" In a perfectly
serioustone,Ibsen answered,
"A simpleblue woolendress" (Koht 318).
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
35
moral centerof A Doll House. But Ibsen would
sharpenlife'sblurrededgesto meetart'sdemand
The heroinewouldbe a housewife,
forplausibility.
nota writer,
and thehackworknotbad novelsbut
thehusband,wouldnotbe
copying;herantagonist,
a cruelbrutebuta kindguardian:ratherthanput
herintoan asylum,he wouldmerelydenounceher
herto reas an unfitwifeand mother,permitting
ceivebed and board,and then,once hisreputation
was safe,would offerto forgiveherand takeher
back on the spot. The Helmers,in otherwords,
would be "normal." And this normalitywould
a sensationalfaitdiversintoa devastattransform
ingpictureof theordinaryrelationsbetweenwife
and husband and allow Ibsen to treatwhat he
called,in a letterto EdmundGosse,"theproblems
of marriedlife" (McFarlane 454). Moreover,he
wouldreverse
theending:theoriginalNora,thecareerjournalist,had beggedto be takenback; his
housewifewould sadly, emphaticallyrefuseto
stay.7
A yearafterA Doll House appeared,whenIbsenwas livingin Rome,a Scandinavianwomanarrivedthere,who had leftherhusbandand small
torunawaywithherlover.The Norwegian
daughter
exilecommunity
consideredherbehaviorunnaturaland askedIbsenwhathe thought."It is notunnatural,onlyitis unusual"wasIbsen'sopinion.The
womanmade ita pointto speakwithIbsen,butto
hersurprise
hetreatedheroffhandedly.
"Well,I did
thesamethingyourNora did," shesaid,offended.
Ibsen replied quietly,"My Nora went alone"
(Zucker182).
A favorite
that
pieceof evidenceintheargument
in women'srightsis his
Ibsen was not interested
aversionto JohnStuartMill(see,e.g.,Chamberlain
96-98). It is popular to quote Ibsen's remarkto
Georg Brandes about Mill's declarationthat he
owedthebestthingsin hiswriting
to hiswife,HarrietTaylor:"'Fancy!' [Ibsen]said smiling,'ifyou
had to readHegelor Krausewiththethoughtthat
youdid notknowforcertainwhetheritwas Mr.or
Mrs. Hegel, Mr. or Mrs. Krause you had before
you!"' (Brandes77). But in fact,Brandes,one of
Ibsen's closestassociatesand probablythe critic
She has committed
and is proudofit;forshehas
forgery,
whounderstoodhimbest,reportsthismotina disdone it out of love forherhusband,to savehislife.But
thishusbandof herstakeshisstandpoint,
conventionally cussion of Ibsen's wholeheartedsupportof the
honorable,on thesideof thelaw,and sees thesituation
women'smovement.
He notesthatMill'sassertion
withmale eyes.
(M. Meyer446)
"seemed especiallyridiculousto Ibsen, withhis
markedindividualism"(76), and explainsthatalThe conflictbetweenlove and law,betweenheart
forfemthoughIbsen had at firstlittlesympathy
and head, betweenfeminineand masculine,is the
inism-perhaps, Brandes guesses, because of
AfterA Doll House had made himfamous,Ibthathisheroine's"real"
senwas fondof explaining
namewas "Eleanora" butthatshehad beencalled
"Nora" fromchildhood.BergliotBjornsonIbsen,
tellsthestoryof
daughter-in-law,
theplaywright's
howsheand herhusband,Sigurd,on one ofthelast
occasionson whichtheysawIbsenoutofbed inthe
yearhe died,askedpermissionto nametheirnewborn daughter "Eleanora." Ibsen was greatly
moved."God bless you,Bergliot,"he said to her
hisownNorawith
(157).He had,in fact,christened
a preciousgift,forboth "Nora" and "Eleanora"
one
werenamesgiventothesisterofOle Schulerud,
of thefewclose friendsof Ibsen'slife,who in the
earlyyearsof grindingpovertybelievedin Ibsen's
hawkedhisfirstplayto bookgeniusand tirelessly
sellerafterbookseller,
finallyspendinghissmallinheritanceto pay foritspublication.
Ibsenwas inspiredto writeA Doll House bythe
terrible
eventsin thelifeof hisprotegeLaura PetersenKieler,a Norwegianjournalistofwhomhe was
fond.Marriedto a man witha phobia
extremely
borrowedmoneyto fiaboutdebt,shehad secretly
nance an Italian journeynecessaryforher husband's recoveryfromtuberculosis.She worked
herself
theloan,exhausting
frantically
to reimburse
in turningout hackwork,and whenherearnings
in desperationshe forgeda
provedinsufficient,
check. On discoveringthe crime,her husband
demandeda legal separationon thegroundsthat
she was an unfitmotherand had herplaced in an
asylum,whereshe was put in the insane ward.
and adtheaffair,
Ibsen,herconfidant
Throughout
disturbed;
he broodedon thewife,
viser,wasgreatly
"forcedto spillherheart'sblood," as he wrotein
a letterto her (Kinck 507; mytrans.),and on the
oblivioushusband,allowinghiswifeto slaveaway
on unworthy
jobs, concernedneitherabout her
physicalwelfarenorherwork.Havingdone all for
forher
love,Laura Kielerwas treatedmonstrously
efforts
bya husbandobsessedwithhisstandingin
theeyesof theworld.In Ibsen'sworkingnotesfor
A Doll House we find:
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36
and Ibsen
Feminism,
TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism,
"irritationat some of the ridiculousformsthe
movementassumed"-this initialresponsegave
way"to a sympathy
all themoreenthusiastic"
when
he saw thatitwas "one of thegreatrallyingpoints
in thebattleof progress"(77).
factabout
A well-known,
perhapsembarrassing
Ibsen,neverbroughtup indiscussionsdisclaiming
is thatwhenhe made
inwomen'srights,
hisinterest
thathehad consciously
thebanquetspeechdenying
workedforthe movement,he was primarilyininyoungwomenand annoyedbytheelderly
terested
feministswho surrounded him. During the
Ibsen constantly
seventieth-birthday
celebrations,
hismarkedand, as MichaelMeyerhas it,
exhibited
"ratherpatheticlongingforyounggirls"(773). He
inhad alreadyhad severalromanticfriendships,
cludingone thathad caused a familyscandal and
In thelightofthis
to wreckhismarriage.
threatened
about
fullydocumentedbiographicalinformation
is his intentionin A Doll
the aging playwright,
House morelikelyto be revealedbywhathe said in
irritation
at a banquetor bywhathe wrotetwenty
out his play?
yearsearlierin sketching
A womancannotbe herself
inthesocietyoftoday,which
is exclusively
a masculinesociety,withlaws writtenby
men,and withaccusersand judges whojudge feminine
conductfromthemasculinestandpoint. (Archer4)
A Doll House is notaboutEverybody'sstruggle
to
findhim-or herselfbut, accordingto its author,
about Everywoman'sstruggleagainstEveryman.
A Doll House is a naturaldevelopmentof the
playIbsenhad justwritten,
theunabashedlyfeministPillars of Society;8 both playsreflectIbsen's
extremely
privilegedfeminist
education,whichhe
shared with few other nineteenth-century
male
authorsand whichhe owedto a trioof extraordinarywomen:SuzannahThoresenIbsen,his wife;
MagdalenThoresen,hiscolleagueat theNorwegian
National Theatrein Bergen,who was Suzannah's
stepmotherand formergoverness;and Camilla
Wergeland
Collett,Ibsen'sliterary
colleague,valued
friend,and the founderof Norwegianfeminism.
MagdalenThoresenwrotenovelsand playsand
translated
theFrenchplaysIbsenputon as a young
stagemanagerat theBergentheater.She was probablythefirst"New Woman"he had evermet.She
pitiedtheinsolventyoungwriter,
took himunder
herwing,and broughthimhome.She had passed
herstrongfeminist
principleson to hercharge,the
outspokenand irrepressible
Suzannah,whoadored
herstrong-minded
and whosefavorite
stepmother
The
second timeIbsen
Sand.
authorwas George
he
asked
her
to
metSuzannah
marryhim.Hjordis,
the fierceshield-maidenof The Vikingsat Heland Svanhild,
geland,theplayoftheirengagement,
heroineof Love's Comedy,the
the strong-willed
play that followed, owe much to Suzannah
Thoresen Ibsen. Later,Nora's way of speaking
would remindpeople of Suzannah's.
The thirdand perhapsmostimportantfeminist
in Ibsen'slifewas hisfriendCamillaCollett,one of
in nineteenth-century
themostactivefeminists
Europeand founderofthemodernNorwegiannovel.
FifteenyearsbeforeMill's Subjectionof Women,
CollettwroteAmtmandens
D0tre(The Governor's
Daughters).Faced withthechoiceof a masculine
nom de plumeor no name at all on thetitlepage,
Collettbroughtout hernovelanonymously
intwo
partsin 1854and 1855,butshenonetheless
became
widelyknownas the author.Its main argument,
based on thegeneralfeminist
claimthatwomen's
is thatwomenshouldhavetheright
feelings
matter,
to educate themselvesand to marrywhom they
please.In theworldof thegovernor'sdaughters,
it
is masculinesuccessthatmatters.
Broughtup to be
ornamentsand mothers,women marrysuitable
menand devotetheirlivesto theirhusbands'careers
and to theirchildren.The novel,a cause celebre,
made Collettfamousovernight.
Collettregularly
visitedtheIbsensin theiryears
of exilein Germany,and she and Suzannah took
everyoccasionto urgeIbsento takeup thefeminist
cause.Theyhad long,livelydiscussionsintheyears
precedingA Doll House, whenfeminism
had become a strongmovementand thetopicof theday
in Scandinavia. Collett was in Munich in 1877,
whenIbsenwas hardat workon PillarsofSociety,
and Ibsen'sbiographerKohtspeculatesthatIbsen
mayhavedeliberately
proddedherto talkaboutthe
in orderto getmaterialforhis
women'smovement
dialogue (313). In anycase, theplayundoubtedly
owesmuchto theconversations
intheIbsenhousehold,as wellas to theNorwegiansuffragette
Aasta
Hansteen,themostnotoriouswomaninthecountry.Deliberately
provocative,
Hansteentookto the
platform
wearingmen'sbootsand carrying
a whip
to protectherselfagainsttheoppressor.A popular
news itemduringthe Ibsens' visitto Norwayin
1874,HansteenbecamethemodelforLona Hessel,
theshockingraisonneuseof Pillars of Society.
The playopenswitha striking
imageofwoman's
placeintheworld:eightladiesparticipating
inwhat
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
themostquintessentially
has been,sinceantiquity,
in
femaleactivity literature-theyare "busy sewing" (15)-as theylistento thetownschoolmaster
readaloud fromWomanas theServantofSociety.
Lona Hesselburstsin,and whentheladiesask her
howshecan aid their"SocietyfortheMorallyDisabled," shesuggests,"I can airitout" (39; "Jegvil
lufteut" 22). Returning
fromAmerica,whereshe
is rumoredto have sung in saloons (even for
a book, Lona is the
money!),lectured,and written
New Woman witha vengeancewho teaches the
othersthetruth.Lona had lovedBernick,butshe
packedherbags whenhe rejectedherto marryfor
money.Bernickturnsoutnotto havebeenmuchof
a loss, however;he has reducedhis wife,Betty,to
an obedientcipherand made a personalservantof
his sister,Martha,a paradigmof the nineteenthwhodevotesherlifeto a malerelacentury
spinster
tive.Martha'sstorymayhavehad itssourcein The
Governor'sDaughters.Like Collett'sMargarethe,
Marthahad onceloveda youngmanbut,too modestto declareherfeelings,suffered
in silence.She
nowlivesforherbrother,
who is insufferable
when
he speaks of her; she is a "nonentity"("ganske
he explains,"who'lltakeon whatever
ubetydelig"),
comes along" (57; "som man kan settetilhvader
forefaller"32). It is in explainingMartha'sexemplaryfunctionin lifethatBernickspeakstheline,
"People shouldn'talwaysbe thinking
ofthemselves
first,especiallywomen"(57; "Menneskeneborda
ikkei forsterekketenkep'a seg selv,og allerminst
kvinnene"32). Dina Dorf, Bernick'sward,disregardsthishappymaxim,and thoughshe agrees
to marry,she tellsherhusband-to-be,
"But firstI
wantto work,becomesomething
thewayyouhave.
I don'twantto be a thingthat'sjust takenalong"
(98; "Men forstviljeg arbeide,bli noe selv,saledes
someDe erdet.Jegvilikkevockreentingsomtas"
55). Dina knowsbeforehandwhatNora learnsaftereightyearsof marriage:"I haveto tryto educatemyself. . . I've gotto do italone" (192;"Jeg
ma se a oppdra meg selv.
Det m'ajeg voere
alene om" 111).
PillarsofSociety,littleknownand playedoutside
Scandinaviaand Germany,
is one of themostradworksof nineteenth-century
icallyfeminist
literature.Ibsentooktheold maid,thebuttof society's
ridicule,a figureof pityand contempt,and made
hera heroine.Rejectedas unfitto be a wife,Lona
Hessel refusesto sacrificeherselfto a surrogate
familyand escapes to the New World,whereshe
leads an independent,authenticlife.As raison-
37
hispointofviewforB3ernick
neuse,shesummarizes
"This
and therest:
societyof yoursis a bachelors'
club.You don'tsee women"(117;"Jertsamrfunn
er
I serikkekvinet samfunnav peppersvenn-sjele;
nen" 65).
It is simplynottrue,then,thatIbsenwas notinIt is also nottruethat"there
terestedin feminism.
is no indicationthatIbsenwas thinking
of writing
a feminist
playwhenhe firstbegan to workseriously on A Doll House in the summerof 1879"
(Valency150). In thespringof thatyear,whileIbsen was planninghis play,a scandalous incident,
easilyavailablein thebiographies,took place that
provesnot onlyIbsen'sinterest
in women'srights
but his passionatesupportforthemovement.Ibsen had made two proposalsto theScandinavian
Club in Rome,wherehe was living:thatthepostof
librarianbe openedto womencandidatesand that
womenbe allowedto votein clubmeetings.In the
debateon theproposal,he made a long,occasionallyeloquentspeech,partof whichfollows:
Is there
anyone
inthisgathering
whodaresassert
thatour
ladiesare inferior
to us in culture,
or intelligence,
or
or artistic
knowledge,
talent?I don'tthinkmanymen
woulddaresuggest
that.Thenwhatisitmenfear?I hear
thereis a traditionherethat womenare cunning
intriguers,
andthattherefore
wedon'twantthem.Well,
I haveencountered
a gooddealofmaleintrigue
inmy
time.. . .
(M. Meyer449)
Ibsen'sfirstproposalwas accepted,thesecondnot,
failingbyone vote.He lefttheclub in a cold rage.
A fewdayslater,he astonishedhis compatriotsby
appearingat a gala evening.Peoplethoughthewas
penitent.
Buthe was planninga surprise:facingthe
ballroomand its dancingcouples,he interrupted
themusicto makea terriblescene,haranguingthe
celebrantswitha furioustirade.He had triedto
bringthemprogress,
he shouted,buttheircowardly
resistancehad refusedit. The womenwereespeciallycontemptible,
foritwas forthemhe had tried
to fight.A Danish countessfaintedand had to be
removed,but Ibsen continued,growingmoreand
moreviolent.GunnarHeiberg,who was present,
latergavethisaccountof theevent:
As hisvoicethundered
itwalsas though
hewereclarifyinghisownthoughts,
as histonguechastised
itwasas
hisspirit
though
werescouring
thedarkness
insearchof
hispresent
spiritual
goal--hispoem[A Doll House]as though
hewerepersonally
bringing
outhistheories,
hischaracters.
incarnating
Andwhenhe wasdone,he
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38
and Ibsen
Feminism,
The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
wentout:intothehall,tookhisovercoatand walked
(M. Meyer450)
home.
In 1884,fiveyearsafterA Doll House had made
cause,
Ibsena recognizedchampionofthefeminist
he joined withH. E. Berner,presidentof theNorwegianWomen'sRightsLeague,and withhisfellow
Bjornson,Lie, and Kielland,in
Norwegianwriters
signinga petitionto the Storting,theNorwegian
parliament,urgingthepassage of a bill establishing separatepropertyrightsformarriedwomen.
thepetitionto Bjornson,Ibsen
Whenhe returned
wrylycommentedthattheStortingshouldnotbe
in men'sopinions: "To consultmen in
interested
sucha matteris likeaskingwolvesiftheydesirebetterprotectionforthesheep" (Letters228). He also
spoke of his fearsthatthe currentcampaignfor
wouldcometo nothing.The souniversalsuffrage
lution,whichhe despairedof seeing,wouldbe the
party"
formation
of a "strong,resoluteprogressive
imthatwould includein itsgoals "the statutory
of thepositionof woman" (229).
provement
notionthatart
It is foolishto applytheformalist
is neversullied by argumentto Ibsen's middleat a timewhenhe was an outperiodplays,written
spoken and directfighterin what he called the
"mortalcombatbetweentwoepochs"(Letters123).
all hislife
hisownman,refusing
Ibsenwas fiercely
to be claimed by organizationsor campaignsof
manysorts,includingtheWomen'sRightsLeague
to removethemarkof Sweden
and themovement
fromtheNorwegianflag.And hehad a deeplyconservative
streakwheremannerswereconcerned(except whenhe lost his temper),forhe was acutely
Ibsenwas a
suspiciousof show.Temperamentally,
loner.But he was also, as GeorgBrandesdeclared,
"a bornpolemist"(47). Whileitis truethatIbsen
neverreducedlifeto "ideas," itis equallytruethat
he was passionatelyinterestedin the eventsand
ideas of hisday.He was as deeplyanchoredin his
timeas anywriterhas been beforeor since.Writa yearafterthepubliingto hisGermantranslator
cationof A Doll House, Ibsen offeredone of the
truestself-appraisals
a writerhas evermade:
connected
thatI have writtenis intimately
Everything
withwhatI have livedthrough,evenif I have not lived
itmyself.
Everynewworkhas servedmeas emancipation
and catharsis;fornoneof us can escapetheresponsibilityand theguiltof thesocietyto whichwe belong.
402; mytrans.)9
(Hundrearsutgave
Long Island University
Brooklyn,New York
Notes
I
RolfFjelde,America'sforemost
translator
of Ibsen,is right;
Et DukkehjemisA Dol/House and notA Doll's House: "There
is certainly
no soundjustification
forperpetrating
theawkward
and blindlytraditional
misnomerofA Doll's House; thehouse
is not Nora's,as thepossessiveimplies;the familiarchildren's
toyis calleda doll house" (xxv).I use Fjelde'stranslation
ofthe
in Englishto PillarsofSocietyand
titlethroughout;
references
A Doll House areto Fjelde's Ibsen: TheCompleteMajor Prose
Plays (15-118;125-96).References
to theoriginaltextsaretoIbsens Samlede Verker(9-65; 70-114).
2 One exampleis thetitleof a CarnegieCommissionreport
on thestatusofwomeninAmericangraduateeducation:Escape
fromtheDoll House, by Saul D. Feldman.
3The notionthatIbsen'sobjectiveinA Doll House was nonfeministhas become so widespreadthateven feminist
critics
honorit.Elaine HoffmanBaruchcan termthedrama"thefeministplaypar excellence"and yetreferto "thespeechin which
[Ibsen]deniedbeinga feminist
inA Doll House" (387),accepting
theidea thatNora'smeaningforfeminism
is essentiallydifferentfromIbsen'sintention.
MiriaLm
Schneiranthologizesthelast
sceneof theplayinFeminism:TheEssentialHistoricalWritings
butexplainsitsinclusionas justified"whatever[Ibsen's]intention" and in spiteof his speech(179).
4 See, forexample,RobertBrLlstein
(49) and MarvinRosen-
berg,whosearticleis a rehashof H0st'spoints,althoughRosenbergseemsunacquaintedwithherwell-known
essay.
5 For a thoroughgoing
defenseof Weigandby a muchlater
criticwho understandsthat 'A Doll House is not a feminist
play,"see R. F. Dietrich.
6 For thestudiesmentioned
in thisparagraphsee theentries
in WorksCitedforMarholm,Woerner,
Key,Canudo,A. Meyer,
and Bennett,as wellas thoseforSalome,Nazimova,Brandes,
and Strindberg.
7 In thesuccesde scandaleofA Doll House, itwas generally
knownthatLaura Kielerwas themodel forNora. She became
deeplyangrywithIbsenforhavingmade use of herprivatelife,
thatsheeventookTorvald'sderogatory
responding
so violently
comments
on Nora'sfather
as references
to herownfather.
More
thantenyearslater,GeorgBrandeswrotean articleclaiming,inthatNora'soriginalhad borrowed
explicablyand rathernastily,
the moneynot to save her husband'slifebut to decorateher
house.Widelycirculatedin thepress,thearticlecaused Laura
Kielergreatdistress;
shebeggeda friend
of Ibsen'sto ask thedramatistto publisha denialof Brandes'sassertion.Ibsenrefused
thathe did notunderstandwhyhe should
absolutely,replying
be broughtin to denywhattheKielerscould denythemselves;
he agreedto see Laura Kieler,however,
and she laterdescribed
a four-hour
in Ibsen'sapartment
interview
duringwhichhe was
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Joan Templeton
so movedthathe wept,althoughhe stillrefusedto setBrandes
straight
(Kinck529-31). ClaimingthatIbsen could haveeasily
writtena letterto a newspaperrefutingBrandes's charges,
and hypocritMichaelMeyerconsidersIbsen'srefusal"cowardly
ical" (635); at thesame time,he suspectsthatthestoryof the
tearfulinterview
maybe "theconfusedand coloredfantasyof
an old lady whoselifehad been a protracted
tragedy"(680).
WhileLaura Kielerdid suffergreatlyin herpersonallife,beingforced,in orderto getherchildrenback,to livewitha man
whohad had herlockedup inan asylum,sheenjoyeda longand
productive
careeras a journalist;herbookswereissuedinmany
editionsand translatedintoforeignlanguages,and she was eson theSchleswigpeciallyhonoredin Denmarkforherwriting
Holsteinquestion.I wouldnotdescribeherlifeas a "protracted
tragedy."In anycase, thereis no reasonto doubtthatshe gave
withIbsen. The fact
a trueaccountof heremotionalinterview
is thatIbsenwasveryattachedto his"skylark,"as he calledher,
and uncommonly
affectionate
withher;he had beengreatly
distressedby herhusband'streatment
of her,had writtento her
warmlyto tellherso and to giveheradvice,and, whenhe heard
ofherincarceration,
had written
to hispublisher
askingfornews
of her(Kinck 506-08). It seemsprobablethatIbsen wouldbe
upsetbyLaura Kieler'stearsand entreaties.His relationswith
younger
women,moreover,
weremarkedbypassionately
feltsentiment;hismeetingwithhisprotegeis nottheonlyoccasionon
whichhe is reportedto have shed tears.
As forhis supposedcowardice,itis certainly
truethatIbsen
was braverin printthanin life.Butitis also truethatone of the
abidingprinciples
of hislifewasa systematic,
scrupulously
hon-
39
ored refusalto commentpubliclyon his works.At theend of
shebegged
theirtalk,whenLauraKielersawhe was notyielding,
himto lethercomeagainthenextday; he replied,"Oh, Laura,
Laura, I don't thinkI can let you go, but you mustn'tcome
tomorow.No, no,itcan'tbe done.I can'tdo it.It'simpossible!"
to a news(Kinck531;mytrans.).Yes,Ibsencould havewritten
paperto saythatNora Helmer'soriginalhad actedhonorably,
and perhapshe shouldhave,buthe could notbringhimselfto
do so, not evenforLaura Kieler.
8 Nora appearsin embryo
in TheLeague
as Selma Brattsberg
in 1869,tenyearsbeforeA Doll House. When
of Youth,written
Selma respondsto herhusband'sannouncementof his finanand hermetaphor
areNora's:"How
cial ruin,bothherargument
I've longedforevena littlesharein yourworries!But whenI
asked,all you did was laughit offwitha joke. You dressedme
up likea doll.Youplayedwithmeas youmightplaywitha child.
Oh, howjoyfullyI couldhavehelpedto beartheburdens!"(93)
Brandessuggestedin hisreviewof theplaythatSelma deserved
a workall to herself;laterhe likedtakingcreditforgivingIbsen theidea forA Doll House.
9 I presenteda longerversionof thefirsttwosectionsof this
essay on 15 February1987 at the eleventhannual Themesin
Drama conference,
entitledWomenin Drama,at theUniversity
ofCalifornia,Riverside.
I wouldliketo expressmythanksto Bill
Harris,Dana Sue McDermott,
and theothercongress
organizers,
and tomyaudience,whoseappreciation
and supportweregreatly
encouraging,
especiallyto KarenBassi (SyracuseUniv.),Lynda
Hart (XavierUniv.),and K. Kendall(SmithColl.).
WorksCited
Adams,R. M. "The Fifty-First
Hudson Review
Anniversary."
10 (1957): 415-23.
Archer,William.Introduction.Ibsen, Works7: 3-21.
Baruch,Elaine Hoffman."Ibsen'sDoll House: A MythforOur
Time." YaleReview69 (1979): 374-87.
Bennett,Louie. "Ibsen as a PioneeroftheWomanMovement."
Westminster
Review173 (1910):278-85.
Brandes,Georg.HenrikIbsenand Bjornstjerne
Bjornson.Trans.
JesseMuir. Rev. William Archer.London: Heinemann,
1899.
Brustein,
Robert.The TheatreofRevolt.NewYork:Little,1962.
Canudo,Ricciotto."La representation
feministe
etsocialed'Ibsen." Granderevue38 (1906): 561-72.
Chamberlain,John.Ibsen: TheOpen Vision.London:Athlone,
1982.
Crawford,Oswald. "The IbsenQuestion."Fortnightly
Review
55 (1891): 727-40.
Culler,Jonathan.
On Deconstruction.
Theoryand Criticism
after
Structuralism.
Ithaca: CornellUP, 1983.
Dietrich,R. F. "Nora's Change of Dress: WeigandRevisited."
TheatreAnnual 36 (1981):20-40.
Dowden, Edward. "HenrikIbsen." Ibsen, Works3: 219-58.
Downs,Brian.A StudyofSix Plays byIbsen. 1959.New York:
Octagon, 1978.
Ellis, Havelock. The New Spirit.New York:ModernLibraryRandom,n.d.
Feldman,Saul D. Escape from the Doll House. New York:
McGraw,1974.
Fjelde,Rolf.Foreword.Ibsen:FourMajor Plays.Trans.Fjelde.
New York:Signet,1965.ix-xxxv.
, trans.Ibsen: The CompleteMajor Prose Plays. New
York:NAL, 1978.
Freedman,Morris.The Moral Impulse:ModernDrama from
Ibsen to thePresent.Carbondale: SouthernIllinoisUP,
1967.
Gilman,Richard.TheMaking of ModernDrama. New York:
Farrar,1972.
Goulianos,Joan,ed. Bya WomanWrit:
Literature
fromSix Centuriesbyand about Women.New York:Bobbs, 1974.
Haugen, Einar. Ibsen's Drama: Author to Audience. Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1979.
H0st, Else. "Nora." Edda 46 (1946): 13-48.
Huneker,James."HenrikIbsen." Ibsen, Works13: 261-92.
Ibsen, Bergliot.The ThreeIbsens. Trans.GerikSchjelderup.
London: Hutchinson,1951.
Ibsen,Henrik.Hundredrsutgave.
HenrikIbsens Samlede Verker.Ed. FrancisBull,HalvdanKoht,and DidrikArupSeip.
Vol. 17. Oslo: Gyldendal,1946.21 vols. 1928-58.
. IbsensSamlede Verker.
Vol. 3. Oslo: Gyldendal,1978.
3 vols.
. TheLeagueof Youth.TheOxfordIbsen.Vol.4. Ed. and
trans.JamesWalterMcFarlaneand GrahamOrton.London: OxfordUP, 1963.24-146. 8 vols. 1960-77.
. Lettersand Speeches.Ed. and trans.EvertSprinchorn.
New York:Hill, 1964.
. The Worksof HenrikIbsen. Ed. and trans.William
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40
Feminism,
and Ibsen
The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
Archer.13 vols. New York:Scribner's,1917.
Johnston,Brian. The Ibsen Cycle. Boston: Hall, 1975.
Key,Ellen. "Ibsen et la femme."Revue 82 (1909): 195-202.
Kinck,B. M. "HenrikIbsen og Laura Kieler."Edda 35 (1935):
498-543.
Koht,Halvdan.LifeofIbsen.Trans.and ed. EinarHaugenand
A. E. Santaniello.New York:Blom, 1971.
Le Gallienne,Eva. Introduction.
EightPlays. By HenrikIbsen.
Trans. Eva Le Gallienne. New York: Modern LibraryRandom, 1981.xii-xxxiii.
Dichtung:
Marholm,Laura. "Die Frau in derskandinavischen
Der Noratypus."
FreieBuhnefurmodernesLeben 1 (1890):
168-71.
Marker,Frederick,and Lisa-Lone Marker."The FirstNora:
Noteson theWorldPremiereofA Doll's House." Ibsenarboken 11(1970-71): 84-100.
of Ibsen." Partisan
McCarthy,Mary."The Willand Testament
Review23 (1956): 74-80.
The
McFarlane,JamesWalter."A Doll's House: Commentary."
OxfordIbsen. Vol.5. Ed. McFarlane.London:OxfordUP,
1961.435-64. 8 vols. 1960-77.
Meyer,Annie. "A Prophetof theNew Womanhood."Lippincott'sMonthlyMagazine 54 (1894): 375-80.
Meyer,Michael. Ibsen. GardenCity:Doubleday,1971.
(1907):909-14.
Nazimova,Alla. "Ibsen'sWomen."Independent
Pearce,Richard."The Limitsof Realism."CollegeEnglish31
(1970): 335-43.
Reinert,Otto. "TeachingA Doll House: An Outline."Shafer
55-62.
Rosenberg,
Marvin."Ibsen versusIbsen:Or,TwoVersionsofA
Doll House." ModernDrama 12 (1969): 187-96.
Rossi,Alice,ed. TheFeministPapers:FromAdams toDe Beau-
voir.New York:Columbia UP, 1973.
Salome,Lou Andreas.HenrikIbsensFrauengestalten
nachseinensechsFamiliendramen.Berlin:Diederichs,1892.
Sayers,Dorothy.UnpopularOpinions:Twenty-One
Essays.New
York:Harcourt,1947.
Schlueter,June."How to Get intoA Doll House: Ibsen'sPlay
as an Introductionto Drama." Shafer63-68.
Schneir,Miriam,ed. Feminism:TheEssentialHistoricalWritings.New York:Random, 1979.
Shafer,Yvonne,ed. Approaches to TeachingIbsen's A Doll
House. New York:MLA, 1985.
. Introduction.Shafer31-34.
Shaw,Bernard.TheQuintessence
ofIbsenism.1891.NewYork:
Hill, 1957.
Sprinchorn,
Evert."Ibsen and theActors."Ibsenand theTheatre.Ed. ErrolDurbach. New York:New YorkUP, 1980.
118-30.
Strindberg,
August.Author'sForeword.
Miss Julie.Six Playsof
Strindberg.
Trans.ElizabethSprigge.GardenCity:Doubleday,1955.61-73.
Valency,Maurice.TheFlowerand theCastle:An Introduction
to ModernDrama. 1963.New York:Schocken,1982.
Veblen,Thorstein.The TheoryoftheLeisureClass. NewYork:
ModernLibrary-Random,1931.
Weigand,Hermann.TheModernIbsen:A Reconsideration.
New
York:Holt, 1925.
Woerner,
Roman. "Ibsen und die Frauenfragen."
Einigesuber
Ibsen: ZurFeierihreralljahrlichen
Mai-FestspieleherausgegebenvonderIbsenvereinigung
zu Dusseldorf1909.Berlin: 1909. 13-19.
Zucker,A. E. Ibsen theMasterBuilder.New York:Holt, 1929.
This content downloaded from 209.7.3.194 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions