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: 28/04/2013 08:09
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 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOAN TEMPLETON

Feminism, andIbsen Criticism, The DollHouse Backlash:

more. She embodies the comedyas well as the life"(vii). In theModernLantragedy of modern A Doll to Teaching guageAssociation's Approaches every individual to findout thekindof personhe or she House, theeditor speaksdisparagingly of "reducis and to strive to becomethatperson. tionistviews of [A Doll House] as a feminist (M. Meyer 457) drama."Summarizing a "majortheme"inthevolumeas "theneedfora broadviewof theplayand BSEN HAS BEEN resoundingly saved from a condemnation of a staticapproach,"she warns feminism, or,as it was called in his day,"the thatdiscussions oftheplay's"connection with femwoman question." His rescuers customarily inism" have value only if theyare monitored, citea statement thedramatist madeon 26 May 1898 "properly channeled and keptfirmly linked to Ibat a seventieth-birthday in hishonor banquetgiven sen'stext"(Shafer, Introduction 32). by the Norwegian Women's Rights League: Removingthe woman question fromA Doll to as partof a corrective effort House is presented I thank thehonorof youforthetoast,butmustdisclaim as a writer free Ibsenfrom hiserroneous reputation having consciously worked for thewomen's moverights of thesis plays, a wrongheadednotion usually ment. ... True enough, it is desirableto solve the saw blamedon Shaw,who,itis claimed, mistakenly womanproblem, butthathas along withall theothers; Ibsenas thenineteenth iconoclast century's greatest not been the whole purpose. My task has been the and offered thatmisreading to the publicas The of humanity. description (Ibsen, Letters 337) Quintessenceof Ibsenism. Ibsen, it is now de rigueur to explain, didnotstoopto "issues."He was Ibsen'schampionsliketo takethisdisavowalas a a poetof thetruth of thehumansoul. ThatNora's precisereference to his purposein writing A Doll exitfrom herdollhousehas longbeentheprincipal House twenty years earlier, his"original intention," international symbol for women's issues, including accordingto Maurice Valency(151). Ibsen's bimanythat far exceed the confinesof her small ographer MichaelMeyer urges all reviewers ofDoll is irrelevant to theessential world,2 meaning of A House revivals to learn Ibsen's speech by heart Doll House, a play,in RichardGilman'sphrase, (774), and James editor of TheOxford McFarlane, "pitched beyond sexualdifference" (65). Ibsen,exIbsen,includes itin hisexplanatory material on A "was completely indifferplainsRobertBrustein, Doll House, under"Some Pronouncements of the entto [thewomanquestion]except as a metaphor Author," as though Ibsenhad beenspeaking ofthe forindividual freedom" therela(105). Discussing play (456). Whatever propaganda feminists may tionofA Doll House to feminism, Halvdan Koht, have made of A Doll House, Ibsen, it is argued, authorof thedefinitive Ibsenlife, Norwegian says never meantto write a playabout thehighly topiin summary, "Littlebylittle thetopicalcontroversy cal subject of women's rights;Nora's conflict diedaway;whatremained wasthework ofart,with represents something other than, or something inevery itsdemand for truth human relation" (323). morethan,woman's.In an article commemorating Thus,itturns out,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," pronounced R. M. with theidea of becoming a person, butitproposes Adams, dismissing feminist claims for the play nothing categorical about womenbecoming peo(416).Likeangels, Norahas no sex.Ibsenmeant her ple; in fact, itsrealtheme has nothing to do with the to be Everyman.3 sexes"(416).Overtwenty years later, after feminism had resurfaced as an international movement, EiThe Demon in theHouse narHaugen,thedoyen ofAmerican Scandinavian studies,insistedthat "Ibsen's Nora is not just a of Eve. [Norais] a daughter [A]nirresistibly bewomanarguing forfemale liberation; she is much witching pieceoffemininity. [Her] charge that in A Doll House' is no moreabout women'srights than HIis aboutthedivine Richard of kings, Shakespeare's right or Ghosts about syphilis.. . . Its themeis theneed of

28

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
havenever of their exchanged all theyears marriage they shehas is incorrect: aboutserious word one serious things lectured heron the howseriously Torvald quiteforgotten less thanthreedaysago. subjectsof forgery and lying (Weigand27, 64-65)

29

In a classic 1925 study, Weigandlabors through that Ibsen conforty-nine pages to demonstrate At thebeceivedof Nora as a silly, lovablefemale. ginning, Weigandconfesses, he was, likeall men, momentarily shakenbytheplay: "Havinghad the misfortune to be bornofthemalesex,weslink away as the The a prioridismissalof women'srights in shame, vowing to mend our ways." The backlash, chastened subject ofA Doll House is a gentlemanly remorse is short-lived, critic's as however, ofa tiresome a "clear male voice, theexistence to acknowledge a refusal the siirreverently breaking as rights," reality, "thehoaryproblem of women's with itscritical lence,"stuns acumen:"'The meanMichael Meyerhas it (457); theissue is decidedly ingofthefinal scene,' thevoicesays,'is epitomized has been greatly ex- by Nora's remark:"Yes, Torvald. Now I vieuxjeu, and itsimportance have In Ibsen'stimeless worldof Everyman, aggerated. as guide, changed mydress.""' Withthis epiphany of gender can onlybe tediousintrusions. Weigand questions spends thenight poring over the"little volNora has beenunBut forovera hundred years, ume." Dawn arrives, with itthereturn bringing of the mostperfidious "masculine der directsiegeas exhibiting is only self-respect" (26-27). Forthere ofthe of hersex;theoriginal characteristics outcry one explanation for of "thiswinsome therevolt litchorusof blame. 1880sis swollennowto a mighty tlewoman" (52) and herchildish door slamming: nar- Ibsen meantA Doll as an irrational and frivolous She is denounced House as comedy.Nora's era vain, a "hysteric"; an "abnormal"woman, cissist; raticbehaviorat thecurtain's fallleavesus laughunlovingegoist who abandons her familyin a ingheartily, for there is no doubtthat shewillreturn ofthelast of selfishness. The proponents paroxysm hometo "revert, imperceptibly, to herroleof songview would seem to thinkIbsen had in mind a birdand charmer"(68). After all, sinceNora is to husbandand housewife Medea, whose cruelty theframed, domes- an children hetailored downto fit irresistibly an extravabewitching pieceof femininity, tic worldof realist drama. in senseof fact, gantpoetand romancer, utterly lacking The first attacks were launchedagainstNora on and endowedwitha naturalgiftforplay-acting which on moral groundsand againstIbsen, ostensibly, makesherinstinctively herexperiences: dramatize how ofthepre- can thesettlement reviewers "literary" ones. The outraged failof a fundamentally comicappeal? A Doll House didnothaveto be miere claimed that (64) takenas a seriousstatement about women's rights The mostpopularwayto render Nora inconseof act 3 is an incomprehensibecause theheroine whatever quentialhas beento attackhermorality; ble transformation of theheroine of acts 1 and 2. haveremained used,thearguments This reasoning providedan ideal way to dismiss thevocabulary muchthe same forovera century. Oswald CrawNora altogether; nothingshe said needed to be in the Fortnightly Reviewin 1891, ford,writing and herdoor slamming takenseriously, could be as dollwritten offas sillytheatrics (Markerand Marker scoldedthatwhileNora maybe "charming womenmaybe charming," she is "unprincipled" 85-87). (732). A halfcentury later, after Freudianism had forthetwoNoras,whichstillreThe argument produced a widely accepted"clinical"languageof mains popular,4 dehas had its mostdetermined disapproval,Nora could be called "abnormal." in the NorwegianscholarElse H0st, who fender lists Nora as one ofthe"neurotic" MaryMcCarthy thatIbsen'scarefree, "lark"could charming argues womenwhomIbsen,shecuriously claims,was the never In feminist." havebecomethe"newly fledged to put on stage(80). For Maurice playwright ecstatic, first any case it is the "childish,expectant, of female Nora is a case study Valency, a hysteria, broken-hearted Nora" who makesA Doll House unwomanly woman: "Nora is a carefully one,theunfeel- willful, immortal (28; mytrans.); theother of whatwe havecometo knowas ingwomanof act 3 who coldlyanalyzestheflaws studiedexample in her marriage, unconvincing thehysterical is psychologically personality-bright, unstable, impulfrom and whollyunsympathetic. ofguilt, sive, romantic, quiteimmune feelings notespecially feminine" The most unrelenting attempton record to and, at bottom, (151-52). More recent Ibsen'sprotagonist, and a favorite assaultson Nora havearguedthat trivialize source forNora'slaterdetractors, to obtainthe moneyto save herhusis Hermann Weigand's.5 her forgery

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30

and Ibsen Feminism, The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,

Sinceitis shewhohas acquired go to extremes." the moneyto save his life,Torvald,and not Nora, is reallythe "wifein the family," althoughhe "has regarded . . . themain himself as thebreadwinner of hiswife and children, support as anydecent husbandwouldliketo regard himself" (122).In another defense,JohnChamberlainarguesthat Torvald deserves oursympathy becauseheis no "mere comIfNorawere monorgarden chauvinist." lesstheactress has proved herto be, "thewomanin Weigand hermight observewhattheembarrassingly naive or ignores, feminist overlooks theindicanamely, forall hisfaults, is taking herat tionsthatTorvald, least as seriously as he can-and perhapsevenas as she deserves"(85). seriously All female, or no womanat all,Noraloseseither way. Frivolous, or unwomanly, deceitful, shequalifiesneither as a heroine noras a spokeswoman for Her famous exit embodies only "the feminism. latest and shallowest notion of emancipated womanhood, herfamily to go outinto abandoning theworldin searchof 'hertrueidentity"'(Freedman4). And in anycase,itis onlynaiveNora who believes shemight makea lifeforherself; "theauan essayist in CollegeEnglish, dience," argues "can howNora is exchanging see mostclearly a practical doll'sroleforan impractical one" (Pearce343). We areback to thehighcondescension of theVictoriansand EdwardDowden:
Inquiriesshould be set on footto ascertain whether a manuscript maynot lurkin some house in Christiania [Oslo] entitled Nora Helmer's Reflections inSolitude;it wouldbe a document of singular interest, and probably wouldconcludewiththewords, "Tomorrow I return to havebeenexactly Torvald; one weekaway;shallinsist on a free woman'sright to unlimited macaroonsas testof his reform." (248)

herirresponsibility and egotism. band's lifeproves condemns Nora'sloveas "unintelBrianJohnston ligent" and her crime as "a trivialact which to evilbecauseitrefused to take nevertheless turns realm intoconsideration at all" theuniversal ethical (97); Ibsen uses Torvald'sfamouspet names for 'animal' Nora-lark, squirrel-togivehera "strong to underherinability identity" and to underscore standtheethical issuesfacedbyhumanbeings (97). thatNora had onlyto ask Evert Sprinchorn argues from herhusband's friends kindly (entirely missing " . . . other theplay)for thenecessary money: any thatif womanwouldhavedone so. ButNora knew to one of Torvald's friends forhelp,she sheturned would have had to share her role of saviorwith someoneelse" (124). tooth ofherunworEvenNora'ssweet is evidence the as wesee her"surreptitiously thiness, devouring forbidden[by her husband] macaroons," even macaroonsto Doctor Rank, "brazenlyoffer[ing] in herdenialthatthemacaroons and finally lying that arehers";eating macaroonsin secret suggests from thestart" "Nora is deceitful and manipulative and that her exitthus "reflects only a petulant woman's irresponsibility" (Schlueter 64-65).As she eats the cookies, Nora adds insultto injuryby herhiddenwishto say "deathand damdeclaring ofherhusband, thusrevealing, acnation"in front cording to Brian Downs, of Christ's College, febrile a trifle and morCambridge,"something bid" in hernature(Downs 130). with Much has beenmadeof Nora'srelationship itis argued,of her Doctor Rank,thesurest proof, Nora is revealed dishonesty. as la belledame sans whenshe"suggestively merci Rankwhether queries willfither" (Schlueter a pairof silkstockings 65); with[him]and toyswithhis afshe "flirts cruelly fectionforher,drawing him on to findout how herhold overhimactuallyis" (Sprinchorn strong 124). Nora'sdetractors haveoften been,from thefirst, her husband's defenders.In an argumentthat claimsto rescueNora and Torvald from "thecamtheliberation ofwomen"so that paignfor they "becomevivid and disturbingly real."Evert Sprinchorn pleads thatTorvald"has givenNora all thematerial thingsand all the sexual attention that any wife young couldreasonably desire. He lovesbeautifulthings, and not least his pretty wife" (121). Nora is incapableof appreciating herhusbandbecause she "is nota normalwoman.She is compulsive,highly imaginative, and very muchinclined to

In thefirst heady daysofA Doll House Norawas rendered powerless bysubstituted denouements and sequels thatsentherhome to her husband.Now Nora'scritics takethehigh-handed position thatall thefusswas unnecessary, sinceNora is nota feministheroine. And yet in thetwentieth-century case whether against her, Norais judgedchildish, "neurotic,"or unprincipled and whether heraccuser's tone is one of witty derision, clinicalsobriety, or moralearnestness, thepurposebehindtheverdict remains thatof Nora'sfrightened contemporaries: to destroy hercredibility and poweras a representative ofwomen. The demoninthehouse, themod-

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
ern"half-woman," as Strindberg called herin the preface to Miss Julie, who,"now thatshehas been discovered has begunto makea noise" (65), must be silenced, herheretical forces so that destroyed, A Doll House can emergea safe classic,rescued from feminism, and Ibsencan assumehis place in the pantheon of true artists,unsullied by the ''womanquestion"and thetopicaltaint of history.

31

in theargument Second,implicit thatwouldrescue A Doll House from feminist "ideology"is an emphatic gender-determined ideologywhosebase is startlingly it is tautological.Women'srights, claimed,is not a fitsubjectfortragedy or poetry, because it is insufficiently to be representative and thusliterarily generally human.Now,ifthisis so, theexplanation can onlybe thatmen,who alreadypossesstherights womenseek,areexcluded The High Claims of Artand Tautology: fromthe femalestruggle, which is, precisely, a "BeyondFeminism" to Men In other forequality with them. struggle bewords, causethesexes do notshare woman's deinequality, sire to be cannot be equal The representative. inthat Nora:I don't believe anymore. (193) nonsenseof the tautologyis doubled when this Nora:Det tror is appliedto theliterary jeg ikke ifthelife lenger pa. for (111) reasoning text; ofa female protagonist is worthy ofourcritical and The universalist critics ofA Doll House makethe moralattention onlyinsofaras it is unrelated to familiar claimthattheworkcan be no moreabout women's inferior and ifthetext status, itself is art womenthanmenbecausetheinterests of bothare onlyto theextent thatwhattheheroine is seeking thesame "human"ones; sexis irrelevant, and thus transcends hersexualidentity, thenwhathappens in the literary gendernonexistent, searchforthe to heris significant onlyto the extent thatit can which transcends and obliterates self, mere biolog- happento a man as well.Whatever is universal is ical and social determinations. in Faced witha text male.ThismeansthatNora Helmer and suchother which the protagonistrejects the nonself she famous nineteenth-century heroines as Emma describes as a doll,theplaything of herfather and Bovary, Anna Karenina, Hester Prynne, and husband, wemust takecarenotto letfeminism, the DorotheaBrooke couldjustas wellbe men-except properconcernof pamphletsor, perhaps,thesis fortheir sex,ofcourse.And,as Dorothy reSayers plays, getinthewayofart:"Ibsen'scase is stronger, minds us in her essay "The Human-Not-Quitenotweaker, ifwedon'tletthetragedy disappearin Human,"women are,after all, "morelikementhan polemics about women's rights" (Reinert62). anything else in theworld" (142). But to say that Nora'sdramacan be poetry onlyifitgoes"beyond" Nora Helmerstandsfor theindividual in searchof feminism. hisor herself, besidesbeinga singularly unhelpful The first pointto makehere is thattheargument and platitudinous is wrong, ifnot generalization, in itself is a fine of "begging thequestion": absurd.ForitmeansthatNora'sconflict example has essenthe overwhelmingly deductivereasoning,while tially nothing to do with her identityas a never laid out,is thatsincetrue artcannotbe 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 unimaginable otherwise. clusion restson the assumptionthat "women's Ifthispointneedsillustrating, letus examine the rights"(along with,one mustsuppose,all other popularargument A Doll House is byanalogythat forhumanrights in whichbiologicalor struggles "no moreabout women'srights than Ghosts [is] socialidentity figures is too limited prominently) to about syphilis" (besidesM. Meyer 457,see Adams be thestuff ofliterature. The "state"ofbeing a fem- 415-16 and Le Gallienne xxiv).Wewillremove from inist is viewed as an uninteresting given, something Ghoststhedated diseasethatpenicillin has made a womanis, not something she becomes,a condi- merely topical(at leastinthemedical sense)and astionsuitableto flatcharacters in flat-heeled shoes signCaptainAlvingand hisson, Oswald,another and outsidetherealmof art,whichtreats univer- fatalmalady-say, tuberculosis. Both the horror sal questionsof humanlife, whosenature is com- and themarvelous aptnessof thevenereal disease, plex and evolutionary. Restricted to works as one of Ibsen'sgrim jokes, are lost(Helene Alving predictableas propaganda, "feminist"heroines fledtheman she lovedto return to "love" theone mustspring from their creators' heads fully armed sheloathed,and thediseasedOswald is theconsewithpamphlets. quence),buttheendis thesame: thechildinherits

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32

and Ibsen Feminism, The Doll House Backlash: Criticism,

ropeand America,from the 1880son, thearticles poured forth:"Der Noratypus,""Ibsen und die Frauenfragen," "Ibsenetla femme," "La representationfeministe et socialed'Ibsen," "A Prophet of theNewWomanhood,""Ibsen as a Pioneerofthe WomanMovement." Thesearea smallsampling of titles from andjournalists whoagreed scholars with Lou Andreas theirmorefamouscontemporaries Salome, Alla Nazimova,GeorgBrandes,and Auotherwriter gustStrindberg, on along withevery Ibsen,whether in theimportant dailiesand weeklies or in thehighbrow and lowbrow that reviews, thethemeof A Doll House was thesubjection of womenbymen.6 HavelockEllis,filled with a young man'sdreams and inspired thatsheheldout byNora,proclaimed nothing less than"thepromise of a newsocial order."In 1890,eleven after as years Betty Hennings Nora first slammedthe shakey backdropdoor in he summarized what Copenhagen's RoyalTheatre, A Doll House meantto theprogressives of Ibsen's time:
The greatwaveof emancipation whichis now sweeping acrossthecivilized world meansnominally more nothing thanthatwomen shouldhavetheright to education, freedom to work, and political in enfranchisement-nothing short butthebareordinary ofan adulthuman rights creaturein a civilizedstate. (9)

the"woman thefather's doom. Now letus remove problem" from A Doll House; letus giveNora Helmerthesamerights as Torvald Helmer, and lethim oftheplay?The herhisequal. Whatis left consider onlyhonestresponse is nothing, forifwe emanciis no thedollhouse, there pate Nora, free herfrom of theplay, play;or,rather, there is theresolution theconfrontation between husbandand wifeand theonly crisis and denouement theexit thatfollows, concludetheaction.As Ibsen thatcould properly "I might explained, honestly saythatitwas forthe sakeof thelastscenethatthewholeplaywas written" (Letters 300). And to readthesceneis to meetwitha compenthat earlymodernfeminism dium of everything denouncedabout woman'sstate.When Nora accommitted cusesherfather and husbandof having heras ifshewere a great sinagainstherbytreating of illustration a textbook she provides a playmate, Wollstonecraft's major chargein the Vindication, thatwomenare brought up to be "pleasingat the were"gensolidvirtue"as ifthey expenseof every tle,domesticbrutes"(Goulianos 142). When she as a doll wifewho has lived"by describes herself doingtricks"(191; "a gj0rekunster" 110),she is a Fuller'schargethat flawless exampleof Margaret man "wantsno woman,butonlya girlto playball with" (Rossi167).Whensherealizes thatsheis unfit to do anything in lifeand announces herremedy"I haveto try to educatemyself" (192; "Jegma se nineteentha oppdramegselv" 111)-she expresses feminism's base century universally agreed-upon in telling forwomen'semancipation; Torvaldshe does not know how to be his wife,she might be HarrietMartineauin "On Female paraphrasing of rearing Education,"whicharguesthenecessity womento be "companions to meninstead of playor servants" when things (Rossi 186).And finally, Noradiscovers thatshehas duties higher thanthose of a "wife and mother" (193;"hustru og mor" 111), she namesas "dutiesto myself" (193; obligations "plikteneimot meg selv" 111),she is voicingthe mostbasic of feminist principles: thatwomenno naless thanmenpossessa moraland intellectual ture to develop and havenotonlya right buta duty it:"thegrand endoftheir exertions 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 "twoman question"thathad yetappeared.In Eu-

in itsday, A Doll House reProfoundly disturbing mainsso still because,in James Huneker's succinct itis "theplea forwomanas a humanbeanalysis, ing,neither morenorlessthanman,which thedramatist made" (275). Wishful Reading:The Critic, theHeroine, and Her Master'sVoice
Torvald: You stay here and givemea reckoning. right You understand whatyou've done?Answer! Youunderstand? (A Doll House 187) Torvald: Her blirdu og starmegtilregnskap. du Forstar hva du har gjort?Svar meg! Forstar du det? (Et Dukkehjem108)

It is easy to answerNora's zealous critics, who seemalmostwillfully wrong; beingsilly or "frivolous" is, afterall, essentialto the role of addlebraineddoll thatNora playsin themarriage. And how frivolous was it to saveTorvald's life?Nora's critics thebottom lineofNora's conveniently forget

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
wouldhavedied ifNora had not "crime":Torvald illhusthegravely forged. Phobicaboutborrowing, bandrefuses be saved to takeouta loan and so must in spiteof himself. ThatNora'slifesaving deed was a crime is thevery foundation of Ibsen'sconflict belaw and love;a good case could be made for tween in herstalwart Nora as a bourgeois defiAntigone ance oftheworld:"A wife hasn'ta right to saveher I don'tknowmuchaboutlaws. . husband's life? I did itout of love" (149; "Skulleikkeen hustru ha rett til'a reddesin mannsliv? Jegkjenner ikkelovenesa noye.. . Jeg gjordedetjo av kjoerlighet" thatNora is notsufficiently 84). The argument appreciative of herhusband'sfondattentions is perhaps bestcountered byquotingVeblen; the noting commoncomplaint againstthenewwoman,that she "is pettedby her husband . . . [and] surroundedbythemostnumerous and delicateattentions[yet] she is not satisfied," he pointsout that the"things which arecited as advantages" typically areprecisely thosethatmakeup woman's grievance (357-58). As for the secretmacaroon eating,it hardlyseems a moral issue, and in any case this household convention dramatizes the modus vivendi of theHelmermarriage, in whichNora is expectedto practicecookie-jar trickeries in the gamebetween thestrong, wise,put-upon husband and theweak,childlike The argument wife. thatIbsenblackens Norainthefamous scene silk-stocking withDoctorRank,which so dismayed Eva Le Galliennethatshe simply omitted it from hertranslation,seemsbothprudish and resolutely determined to ignoreIbsen'spurposes.Nora, without reflectingon thesignificance ofherfeeling, quitenaturally prefers the companyof the understanding and amusingdoctorto thatof herhusband:"Yes,you see," Nora blithely tosses off,as she and Rank speak of their ease together, "Therearesomepeople thatone lovesmostand otherpeople thatone wouldalmostprefer beingwith"(166; "Ja,serDe, dererjo noenmennesker sommanholder mestav, og andremennesker som mannesten vilvere helst sammenmed" 95). It is Rank who willbe herreal audienceat thedancing of thetarantella: "youcan imaginethenthatI'm dancingonlyforyou-yes, and ofcoursefor Torvald, too-that's understood" (164; "og da skal De forestille Dem at jeg gjor det bareforDeresskyld,-ja, og sa naturligvis for Torvalds;-det forstar seg" 93). It is notsurprising that Rankprovides a perfect piano accompaniment for Nora's famouspractice sessionand thatTorvald is perturbed: "Rank, stop! This is pure madness!"

33

erjo denrene (174;"Rank,holdopp; dette galskap" I think, 99). Itwouldnotbe too speculative, toguess wouldnotneedto fanthatRank,unlikeTorvald, before tasizethatNora is a virgin makinglove to thesilk-stocking her.Through scene,Ibsen shows the sexual side of the Helmermesalliance, a side Nora scarcely sees herself. And itsendingproves, butheressential notherdishonesty, indisputably, WhenRankconfronts herwith honorableness. his ofloveas sheis aboutto ask him moving confession forthemoney shedesperately needs,sherefuses to makeuse of hisfeelings and categorically his rejects help: "After that? . . . You can't knowanything now" (166; "Efter dette?. . . Ingenting kanDe fa vitenu" 94). The claimthatNora cannotbe a feminist heroinebecausesheis flawed is an example of question similar to theuniversalists' begging that argument A Doll House is nota feminist because femiplay nismis ipso factoan unworthy subjectof art.Nora fallsshortaccordingto unnamed,"self-evident" criteria for a feminist would heroine, amongwhich seemto be one, some,or all of the following: an ever-present a calm,unexcitserious-mindedness; able temperament; an unshakable obedience to the letter ofthelaw,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, excitand desperate-inshort, able,confused, humanNora Helmer. Butwhile Norais too flawed to represent women, theargument stopsshortand thecase is curiously in theclaimthatshe represents altered humanbeings.Nora'shumanity keepsherfrom representing women but not, magically,from representing people-namelymen,and women to theextent that whathappens to them can happento menas wellas fabulous an example surely of critical reasoning as we can imagine,and yet one that is found everywhere. This strange and illogicalstancehas itsparallel fornonsensein a knotty criticalconundrum: if Nora is a frivolous and superficial woman who leavesherhusbandon a whim, A Doll House then as a pieceofrather qualifies shoddy boulevardisme; if Nora is abnormal,a case study, thenA Doll House is an example of reductivelaboratory naturalism; if Nora is a self-serving egoistwhose unbridled thirst forpowerdestroys hermarriage,

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

and Ibsen TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism, Feminism,

chargefrequently leveledagainstA Doll House is thatthehusband seemstoo vainto be true, "an egoistof suchdimensions," in HalvdanKoht'sphrase, "thatwecan hardly takehimseriously" (319).And yetthe accusationsagainstNora restate her husfrom band's;thecharges range made frivolousness, whenTorvald is annoyed at whathe thinks areher spendthrift habits ("What are those littlebirds calledthatalways their fly fortunes?" through [127; "Hva er detde fugle kallessom alltidsetter penge overstyr?" whenhe learns 70]),to deceitfulness, of hersecret loan to save his life(". . . a hypocrite, a liar-worse, worse-a criminal"[187; ". . . en hyklerske, en lognerske,-verre, verre,-en forbryterske!" to selfishness 108]), and thusunwomanliness,when he hears her decision to leave him ("Abandon yourhome,yourhusband,yourchildren.. . . Before all elseyou're a wife and mother" [192-93;"Forlate ditt hjem, dinmannog dineborn! . . . Du er forst og fremst hustru og mor" 111]). Amusedor angry, thehusband'saccusingvoiceis so authoritative thatin spiteofTorvald's unworthiness as moral spokesman,Nora's critics,in a thoroughgoing and, one supposes, unconscious identification, parrot hisjudgments and thusread herthrough hiseyes. TheirNora is Torvald's Nora, a critical thatresembles perspective Othello's taking wordon Desdemona. Wishful Intention: Or, What Ibsen Is Supposed to Have Meant
Bernick:People shouldn't alwaysbe thinking of themselvesfirst, especially women. (Pillars of Society57) Bernick: Menneskene b0rda ikkei f0rste rekke tenke pa seg selv,og allerminst kvinnene. St0tten (Samfundets 32)

then A Doll House is melodrama, with Nora as villain and Torvald as victim, and act 3 is either an incomprehensible bore or the most ponderously unsuccessful instance of dramatic irony in thehistoryof the theater.But Nora's criticshave not claimedthatA Doll House belongsto anyinferior subgenre. Applaudingit as a finedrama,they engage in side attackson its protagonist, sniping at Nora to discredit herarguments and ignoring the implications of their own. while never acofthis The incompleteness attack, To destroy Nora's is easilyexplained. knowledged, wouldhave identity as wifeand womanhercritics in of Jonathan the the words to "deconstruct" play; have to show would Culler'suseful definition, they it thephilosophy asserts, howthetext "undermines or thehierarchical oppositionson whichit relies" whatNora says (86). Theywouldhaveto examine and her in act 3 about herhusband,hermarriage, that her unequivocalstatelifeand demonstrate mentsare contested by the text.Since the textin a Norawouldmean is play, question deconstructing and thesignificance-the arguing interest, worth, the of the Ibsen importance-of part dialogue gives Nora's foil,thatis, herhusband.It is nota matter as some of his of absolvingTorvaldof villainy, defenders seem to thinkit is; Ibsen was not inin theconflict of melodrama, and in any terested case poor Torvaldis obviouslynot "evil." It is a call matter of showing thathisassertions seriously the statements of 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's without suggested party itor thatTorvald couldbe Ibsen's,or anyknowing in anymodestly one else's,raisonneur enlightened universe of theWestern world.It would be an incritic indeedwhocouldseriously trepid upholdthe position of a man who says to his wife,"Your father's official career was hardly above reproach. But mineis" (160; "Din farvar ingenuangripelig embedsmann. Men det erjeg" 90) or "For a man there's sweetand satisfysomething indescribably he's forgiven ingin knowing his wife.... [I]n a her he'sgiven fresh intotheworld sense, again,and she's become his wifeand his childas well" (190; "Det erforen mannnoe sa ubeskrivelig sottog tili dette fredssstillende 'avitemedsegselvat han har sin hustru. ... han har liksomsatthenne tilgitt inni verden pa ny;hunerpa enm'ate blitt bade hans hustruog hans barn tillike" 109-10). In fact,a

Anyone who claimsthatIbsenthought of Nora as a silly, or selfish womanis either hysterical, ignoring or misrepresenting theplaintruth, present fromthe earliestto the most recent biographies, that Ibsen admired,even adored, Nora Helmer. Amongall hischaracters, shewas theone he liked bestand found mostreal.Whileworking on A Doll House, he announced to SuzannahIbsen,hiswife, "I've justseenNora. She cameright overto 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 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
A Doll House had made himfamous,IbAfter "real" thathisheroine's senwas fondof explaining namewas "Eleanora" butthatshehad beencalled BjornsonIbsen, "Nora" from childhood.Bergliot of tellsthestory daughter-in-law, theplaywright's on one ofthelast Sigurd, howsheand herhusband, sawIbsenoutofbed inthe occasionson which they newto nametheir yearhe died,askedpermission born daughter "Eleanora." Ibsen was greatly he said to her moved."God bless you,Bergliot," hisownNorawith christened (157).He had,in fact, a preciousgift, forboth "Nora" and "Eleanora" one tothesister ofOle Schulerud, were namesgiven who in the of thefewclose friends of Ibsen'slife, in Ibsen's believed poverty earlyyearsof grinding hisfirst hawked playto bookgeniusand tirelessly hissmallinseller after bookseller, finally spending heritance to pay foritspublication. to write A Doll House bythe Ibsenwas inspired Laura Peterin thelifeof hisprotege terrible events ofwhomhe was senKieler, a Norwegian journalist fond.Marriedto a man witha phobia extremely to fiborrowed aboutdebt,shehad secretly money nance an Italian journeynecessaryforher husShe worked fromtuberculosis. band's recovery herself theloan,exhausting frantically to reimburse in turning and whenherearnings out hackwork, in desperationshe forgeda provedinsufficient, the crime,her husband check. On discovering that demandeda legal separation on thegrounds she was an unfit mother and 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 letter to her (Kinck 507; mytrans.),and on the to slaveaway oblivioushusband,allowing hiswife on unworthy about her jobs, concernedneither norherwork.Havingdone all for physical welfare forher monstrously love,Laura Kielerwas treated efforts in bya husbandobsessedwithhisstanding theeyesof theworld.In Ibsen'sworking notesfor A Doll House we find:

35

moral centerof A Doll House. But Ibsen would sharpenlife'sblurred edgesto meetart'sdemand The heroine wouldbe a housewife, forplausibility. notbad novelsbut nota writer, and thehackwork wouldnotbe thehusband, copying; herantagonist, thanput a cruelbrutebuta kindguardian:rather denounceher he wouldmerely herintoan asylum, herto rewifeand mother, as an unfit permitting once hisreputation ceivebed and board,and then, herand takeher was safe,would offer to forgive back on the spot. The Helmers,in otherwords, would be "normal." And this normality would intoa devastata sensationalfait transform divers between wife relations ingpicture of theordinary and husband and allow Ibsen to treatwhat he to EdmundGosse,"theproblems called,in a letter he of marriedlife" (McFarlane 454). Moreover, wouldreverse theending: theoriginal Nora,thecareerjournalist, had beggedto be takenback; his housewifewould sadly, emphatically refuseto stay.7 A yearafter A Doll House appeared,whenIbin Rome,a Scandinavian senwas living womanarrivedthere, who had leftherhusbandand small with The Norwegian torunaway herlover. daughter unnatuexilecommunity considered herbehavior "It is notunraland askedIbsenwhathe thought. natural, only itis unusual"wasIbsen'sopinion. The womanmade ita pointto speakwithIbsen,butto hersurprise hetreated heroffhandedly. "Well, I did thesamething yourNora did," shesaid,offended. Ibsen replied quietly,"My Nora went alone" (Zucker182). A favorite intheargument that pieceof evidence in women'srights Ibsen was not interested is his Mill(see,e.g.,Chamberlain aversion to John Stuart to 96-98). It is popular to quote Ibsen's remark Georg Brandes about Mill's declarationthat he in hiswriting owedthebestthings to hiswife, HarrietTaylor:"'Fancy!' [Ibsen]said smiling, 'ifyou had to readHegelor Krausewiththethought that whether itwas Mr.or youdid notknowforcertain 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, himbest,reports whounderstood thismotina disdone it out of love forherhusband,to savehislife.But thishusbandof hers takeshisstandpoint, conventionally cussion of Ibsen's wholehearted supportof the on thesideof thelaw,and sees thesituation honorable, women's movement. He notesthatMill'sassertion withmale eyes. (M. Meyer446) "seemed especiallyridiculousto Ibsen, withhis marked individualism" (76), and explains thatalheart The conflict love and law,between between little forfemthoughIbsen had at first sympathy and head, between inism-perhaps, Brandes guesses, because of is the feminine and masculine,

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

and Ibsen Feminism, TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism,

herstrong-minded and whosefavorite stepmother The second timeIbsen Sand. authorwas George he asked her to him.Hjordis, metSuzannah marry the fierceshield-maiden of The Vikings at Heland Svanhild, theplayoftheir geland, engagement, heroineof Love's Comedy,the the strong-willed play that followed, owe much to Suzannah Thoresen Ibsen. Later,Nora's way of speaking would remind people of Suzannah's. feminist The third and perhapsmostimportant in Ibsen'slife one of was hisfriend CamillaCollett, in nineteenth-century themostactivefeminists Europeand founder ofthemodern novel. Norwegian Fifteen Mill's Subjectionof Women, yearsbefore Collett wrote Amtmandens D0tre(The Governor's Daughters).Faced withthechoiceof a masculine nom de plumeor no name at all on thetitlepage, Collettbrought out hernovelanonymously intwo partsin 1854and 1855,butshenonetheless became widelyknownas the author.Its main argument, based on thegeneralfeminist claimthatwomen's is thatwomen feelings matter, shouldhavetheright to educate themselves and to marry whom they please.In theworldof thegovernor's it daughters, is masculine successthatmatters. Brought up to be ornaments and mothers, women marrysuitable menand devote their lives to their husbands' careers and to theirchildren. The novel,a cause celebre, made Collettfamousovernight. Collettregularly visited theIbsensin their years of exilein Germany, and she and Suzannah took occasionto urgeIbsento takeup thefeminist every cause.Theyhad long,lively intheyears discussions A Doll House, whenfeminism preceding had become a strong movement and thetopicof theday in Scandinavia. Collett was in Munich in 1877, whenIbsenwas hardat workon PillarsofSociety, and Ibsen'sbiographer Kohtspeculates thatIbsen mayhavedeliberately prodded herto talkaboutthe in order women's movement to getmaterial forhis dialogue (313). In anycase, theplayundoubtedly owesmuchto theconversations intheIbsenhousehold,as wellas to theNorwegian suffragette Aasta Hansteen, themostnotorious womaninthecountry. Deliberately provocative, Hansteen tookto the platform wearing men'sbootsand carrying a whip to protect herself A popular againsttheoppressor. news itemduringthe Ibsens' visitto Norwayin 1874, Hansteen becamethemodelforLona Hessel, theshocking raisonneuse of Pillars of Society. The playopenswith a striking imageofwoman's placeintheworld: eight ladiesparticipating inwhat

"irritation at some of the ridiculousformsthe movement assumed"-this initialresponsegave way"to a sympathy all themore enthusiastic" when he saw thatitwas "one of thegreat rallying points in thebattleof progress" (77). factabout A well-known, perhaps embarrassing Ibsen,never brought up indiscussions disclaiming is thatwhenhe made inwomen's hisinterest rights, thathehad consciously thebanquetspeech denying inworkedforthe movement, he was primarily inyoung women and annoyed terested bytheelderly feministswho surrounded him. During the Ibsen constantly seventieth-birthday celebrations, has it, hismarked exhibited and, as MichaelMeyer "rather pathetic longing foryoung girls"(773). He inhad alreadyhad several romantic friendships, scandal and cludingone thathad caused a family In thelight hismarriage. ofthis to wreck threatened information about documented fully biographical is his intention in A Doll the aging playwright, to be revealed House morelikely bywhathe said in irritation at a banquetor bywhathe wrote twenty out his play? yearsearlierin sketching
A womancannotbe herself inthesociety oftoday, which is exclusively a masculinesociety, withlaws written by men,and withaccusersand judges whojudge feminine conductfrom themasculinestandpoint. (Archer 4)

A Doll House is notaboutEverybody's struggle to findhim-or herself to its author, but, according about Everywoman's struggle againstEveryman. A Doll House is a naturaldevelopment of the playIbsenhad justwritten, theunabashedly feministPillars of Society;8 both playsreflect Ibsen's feminist whichhe extremely privileged education, shared with few other nineteenth-century male authorsand whichhe owedto a trioof extraordinarywomen:SuzannahThoresenIbsen,his wife; hiscolleague at theNorwegian MagdalenThoresen, National Theatrein Bergen, who was Suzannah's and former stepmother governess;and Camilla Wergeland Collett, Ibsen'sliterary colleague, valued friend, and the founder of Norwegian feminism. wrote MagdalenThoresen novelsand playsand translated theFrench playsIbsenputon as a young at theBergen stagemanager theater. She was probablythefirst "New Woman"he had evermet.She pitiedtheinsolvent youngwriter, took himunder herwing,and brought himhome.She had passed herstrong feminist principles on to hercharge, the outspoken and irrepressible Suzannah, whoadored

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
themostquintessentially has been,sinceantiquity, in are "busy sewfemaleactivity literature-they listen to thetownschoolmaster ing" (15)-as they readaloud fromWoman as theServant ofSociety. Lona Hesselbursts in,and whentheladiesask her Dishowshecan aid their theMorally "Societyfor "I can airitout" (39; "Jegvil abled," shesuggests, lufte ut" 22). Returning from she America,where is rumoredto have sung in saloons (even for a book, Lona is the and written money!), lectured, New Woman witha vengeancewho teaches the Lona had lovedBernick, butshe others thetruth. herto marry packedherbags whenhe rejected for money. Bernick turns outnotto havebeenmuchof a loss, however; he has reducedhis wife, to Betty, an obedient and made a personalservant of cipher his sister, Martha,a paradigmof the nineteenthwhodevotes herlife to a malerelacentury spinster tive. Martha'sstory mayhavehad itssourcein The Governor's Daughters.Like Collett'sMargarethe, Marthahad onceloveda young manbut,too modestto declareherfeelings, in silence.She suffered 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 explaining Martha'sexemin lifethatBernick plaryfunction speakstheline, "People shouldn't be thinking ofthemselves always first, especially women"(57; "Menneskene borda ikkei forste rekke tenke p'a seg selv,og allerminst kvinnene"32). Dina Dorf, Bernick'sward,disthishappymaxim,and thoughshe agrees regards to marry, she tellsherhusband-to-be, "But first I wantto work, becomesomething thewayyouhave. I don'twantto be a thing that'sjust takenalong" viljeg arbeide, bli noe selv, (98; "Men forst saledes someDe erdet.Jeg vilikkevockre entingsomtas" 55). Dina knowsbeforehand whatNora learnsaftereightyearsof marriage:"I haveto try to educatemyself. . . I've gotto do italone" (192;"Jeg ma se a oppdra meg selv. Det m'ajeg voere alene om" 111). PillarsofSociety, little known and played outside Scandinaviaand Germany, is one of themostradworksof nineteenth-century icallyfeminist literature.Ibsentooktheold maid,thebuttof society's ridicule, a figure of pityand contempt, and made hera heroine. Rejectedas unfit to be a wife, Lona Hessel refuses to sacrificeherself to a surrogate and escapes to the New World,whereshe family leads an independent, authenticlife.As raison-

37

hispoint ofviewfor shesummarizes neuse, B3ernick "This of yours is a bachelors' and therest: society club.You don'tsee women"(117;"Jert samrfunn er I serikkekvinet samfunn av peppersvenn-sjele; nen" 65). It is simply nottrue, thatIbsenwas notinthen, in feminism. It is also nottruethat"there terested is no indication thatIbsenwas thinking of writing a feminist playwhenhe first began to workseriously on A Doll House in the summerof 1879" (Valency 150). In thespring of thatyear, whileIbsen was planning his 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,where he was living: thatthepostof librarian be openedto womencandidates and that womenbe allowedto votein clubmeetings. In the debateon theproposal,he made a long,occasionallyeloquentspeech,partof whichfollows: Is there anyone inthis gathering who dares assert that our ladiesare inferior to us in culture, or intelligence, or or artistic knowledge, I don'tthink talent? men many would dare suggest that. Then what isitmen fear? I hear thereis a tradition herethat womenare cunning intriguers, andthat therefore wedon't want them. Well, I haveencountered a gooddealofmaleintrigue inmy time. . . . (M. Meyer 449) Ibsen'sfirst proposalwas accepted, thesecondnot, failing byone vote.He left theclub in a cold rage. A fewdayslater, he astonished his compatriots by appearing at a gala evening. Peoplethought hewas penitent. Buthe was planning a surprise: facing the ballroomand its dancingcouples,he interrupted themusicto makea terrible scene,haranguing the celebrants witha furioustirade.He had triedto bring them he shouted, progress, buttheir cowardly resistance had refused it. The womenwereespecially itwas for contemptible, for them he had tried to fight. A Danish countessfainted and had to be removed, but Ibsen continued, growing moreand moreviolent.GunnarHeiberg,who was present, latergavethisaccountof theevent: As hisvoice thundered itwals as though hewere clarifyinghisownthoughts, as histongue chastised itwasas hisspirit though were scouring the insearch darkness of hispresent spiritual goal--his poem[A Doll House]as though hewere personally bringing outhistheories, hischaracters. incarnating Andwhen he wasdone,he

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38

and Ibsen Feminism, The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,

all hislife hisownman,refusing Ibsenwas fiercely or campaignsof to be claimed by organizations League Rights including theWomen's manysorts, themarkof Sweden to remove and themovement conflag.And hehad a deeply from theNorwegian were concerned where manners (exservative streak forhe was acutely cept whenhe lost his temper), Ibsenwas a suspiciousof show.Temperamentally, loner.But he was also, as GeorgBrandesdeclared, "a bornpolemist"(47). Whileitis truethatIbsen lifeto "ideas," itis equallytruethat never reduced in the eventsand interested he was passionately in his ideas of hisday.He was as deeplyanchored has been beforeor since.Writtimeas anywriter thepublia yearafter ingto hisGermantranslator one of the cationof A Doll House, Ibsen offered has evermade: truest a writer self-appraisals
connected thatI have written is intimately Everything evenif I have not lived withwhatI have livedthrough, meas emancipation newwork has served itmyself. Every and catharsis; fornoneof us can escapetheresponsibilto whichwe belong. ityand theguiltof thesociety 402; mytrans.)9 (Hundrearsutgave

and walked out:intothehall,tookhisovercoat went 450) (M. Meyer home. A Doll House had made after years In 1884,five cause, ofthefeminist champion Ibsena recognized of theNorpresident he joined withH. E. Berner, hisfellow League,and with Rights Women's wegian Bjornson,Lie, and Kielland,in writers Norwegian theNorwegian to the Storting, a petition signing thepassage of a bill establishurging parliament, women. formarried rights ing separateproperty to Bjornson,Ibsen thepetition Whenhe returned shouldnotbe thattheStorting wryly commented in men'sopinions: "To consultmen in interested ifthey desire betwolves is likeasking sucha matter 228). He also forthesheep" (Letters terprotection campaignfor spoke of his fearsthatthe current The sowouldcometo nothing. universal suffrage wouldbe the of seeing, whichhe despaired lution, party" progressive resolute formation of a "strong, imthatwould includein itsgoals "the statutory of thepositionof woman" (229). provement notion thatart to applytheformalist It is foolish to Ibsen's middleis neversullied by argument written at a timewhenhe was an outperiodplays, in what he called the spoken and directfighter twoepochs"(Letters 123). "mortal combatbetween

Long Island University Brooklyn, New York

Notes
RolfFjelde,America's foremost translator of Ibsen,is right; Et Dukkehjem isA Dol/House and notA Doll's House: "There is certainly no soundjustification forperpetrating theawkward and blindly traditional misnomer ofA Doll's House; thehouse is not Nora's,as thepossessiveimplies;the familiar children's toyis calleda doll house" (xxv).I use Fjelde'stranslation ofthe in Englishto PillarsofSocietyand title throughout; references A Doll House areto Fjelde's Ibsen: TheComplete Major Prose Plays (15-118;125-96).References to theoriginal texts aretoIbsens Samlede Verker (9-65; 70-114). 2 One exampleis thetitle of a CarnegieCommissionreport on thestatus inAmerican ofwomen education: graduate Escape fromtheDoll House, by Saul D. Feldman. 3The notion inA Doll House was nonthatIbsen'sobjective feminist has become so widespreadthateven feminist critics honorit.Elaine Hoffman Baruchcan term thedrama"thefeministplaypar excellence" and yetrefer to "thespeechin which [Ibsen]denied being a feminist inA Doll House" (387),accepting theidea thatNora'smeaning forfeminism is essentially differentfrom Ibsen'sintention. MiriaLm Schneir thelast anthologizes sceneof theplayinFeminism: TheEssential HistoricalWritings butexplains itsinclusion as justified "whatever [Ibsen's]intention" and in spiteof his speech(179). 4 See, forexample, RobertBrLlstein (49) and MarvinRosen-

of H0st'spoints, berg, whosearticle is a rehash although Rosenwithherwell-known bergseemsunacquainted essay. 5 For a thoroughgoing of Weigandby a muchlater defense criticwho understands that 'A Doll House is not a feminist play,"see R. F. Dietrich. 6 For thestudies in thisparagraph see theentries mentioned in Works CitedforMarholm, 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 withIbsenforhaving made use of herprivate deeply angry life, thatsheeventookTorvald's responding so violently derogatory comments on Nora'sfather as references to herownfather. More thantenyears an article inlater, GeorgBrandes wrote claiming, and rather thatNora'soriginal had borrowed explicably nastily, the moneynot to save her husband'slifebut to decorateher in thepress, house.Widelycirculated thearticlecaused Laura Kieler great distress; shebegged a friend of Ibsen's to ask thedramatist to publish a denialof Brandes'sassertion. Ibsenrefused thathe did notunderstand absolutely, replying whyhe should in to denywhattheKielerscould denythemselves; be brought he agreedto see Laura Kieler, however, and she laterdescribed a four-hour in Ibsen'sapartment interview which he was during

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Joan Templeton
to setBrandes he stillrefused so movedthathe wept, although straight (Kinck529-31). ClaimingthatIbsen could haveeasily written a letterto a newspaperrefuting Brandes's charges, and hypocritMichaelMeyer considers Ibsen'srefusal "cowardly ical" (635); at thesame time,he suspectsthatthestory of the and coloredfantasy of tearful interview maybe "theconfused an old lady whoselifehad been a protracted tragedy" (680). WhileLaura Kielerdid suffer greatly in herpersonallife, beingforced, in orderto getherchildren back,to livewitha man whohad had herlockedup inan asylum, sheenjoyed a longand productive career as a journalist; herbookswere issuedinmany editions and translated intoforeign and she was eslanguages, on theSchleswigpeciallyhonoredin Denmarkforherwriting Holstein question.I wouldnotdescribe herlifeas a "protracted In anycase, there is no reasonto doubtthatshe gave tragedy." withIbsen. The fact a trueaccountof heremotionalinterview is thatIbsenwasvery to his"skylark," attached as he calledher, and uncommonly affectionate with her;he had beengreatly distressed by herhusband'streatment of her,had written to her warmly to tellherso and to giveheradvice,and, whenhe heard ofherincarceration, had written to hispublisher askingfor news of her(Kinck 506-08). It seemsprobablethatIbsen wouldbe upsetbyLaura Kieler'stearsand entreaties. His relations with younger women, were moreover, marked bypassionately felt senhismeeting with hisprotege is nottheonlyoccasionon timent; whichhe is reported to have shed tears. As forhis supposedcowardice, itis certainly truethatIbsen was braver in print thanin life.Butitis also truethatone of the abiding principles of hislifewasa systematic, scrupulously hon-

39

on his works.At theend of ored refusal to comment publicly shebegged sawhe was notyielding, their talk, whenLauraKieler himto lethercomeagainthenextday; he replied, "Oh, Laura, come Laura, I don't thinkI can let you go, but you mustn't tomorow. No, no,itcan'tbe done.I can'tdo it.It'simpossible!" to a news(Kinck531;mytrans.). Yes,Ibsencould havewritten had actedhonorably, paperto saythatNora Helmer'soriginal and perhapshe shouldhave,buthe could notbring himself to do so, not evenforLaura Kieler. 8 Nora appearsin embryo in TheLeague as Selma Brattsberg in 1869,tenyears A Doll House. When of Youth, written before Selma responds to herhusband'sannouncement of his finanbothherargument and hermetaphor areNora's:"How cial ruin, I've longedforevena little sharein yourworries! But whenI asked,all you did was laughit offwitha joke. You dressed me up likea doll.Youplayed with meas youmight playwith a child. I couldhavehelpedto beartheburdens!" Oh, howjoyfully (93) in hisreview Brandessuggested of theplaythatSelma deserved a workall to herself; laterhe likedtaking credit forgiving Ibsen theidea forA Doll House. 9 I presented a longer version of thefirst twosections of this essay on 15 February1987 at the eleventh annual Themesin Drama conference, entitled Women in Drama,at theUniversity ofCalifornia, Riverside. I wouldliketo express mythanks to Bill Harris, Dana Sue McDermott, and theother congress organizers, and tomyaudience, whoseappreciation and support were greatly encouraging, especially to KarenBassi (Syracuse Univ.),Lynda Hart (XavierUniv.),and K. Kendall(SmithColl.).

Works Cited
Adams,R. M. "The Fifty-First Hudson Review Anniversary." 10 (1957): 415-23. Archer, William.Introduction. Ibsen, Works 7: 3-21. Baruch, Elaine Hoffman. "Ibsen'sDoll House: A Myth for Our Time." YaleReview69 (1979): 374-87. Bennett, Louie. "Ibsen as a PioneeroftheWomanMovement." Westminster Review173 (1910):278-85. Brandes, Georg.Henrik Ibsenand Bjornstjerne Bjornson. Trans. JesseMuir. Rev. William Archer.London: Heinemann, 1899. Brustein, Robert. The Theatre ofRevolt. 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. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca: CornellUP, 1983. Dietrich, R. F. "Nora's Change of Dress: WeigandRevisited." Theatre Annual 36 (1981):20-40. Dowden, Edward. "HenrikIbsen." Ibsen, Works 3: 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. ed. Bya Woman Goulianos, Joan, Writ: Literature Six Cenfrom turies byand 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, Works 13: 261-92. Ibsen, Bergliot.The ThreeIbsens. Trans.GerikSchjelderup. London: Hutchinson, 1951. Ibsen,Henrik.Hundredrsutgave. HenrikIbsens Samlede VerEd. Francis ker. and Didrik Bull,HalvdanKoht, ArupSeip. Vol. 17. Oslo: Gyldendal,1946.21 vols. 1928-58. . IbsensSamlede Verker. Vol. 3. Oslo: Gyldendal, 1978. 3 vols. . TheLeagueof Youth. TheOxford Ibsen.Vol.4. Ed. and trans.JamesWalter McFarlaneand GrahamOrton.London: OxfordUP, 1963.24-146. 8 vols. 1960-77. . Letters and Speeches.Ed. and trans. Evert Sprinchorn. New York:Hill, 1964. . The Works of HenrikIbsen. Ed. and trans.William

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40

Feminism, and Ibsen The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,

voir.New York:Columbia UP, 1973. Salome,Lou Andreas.HenrikIbsensFrauengestalten nachseinensechsFamiliendramen. Berlin:Diederichs,1892. Sayers, Dorothy. Unpopular Opinions:Twenty-One Essays.New York:Harcourt,1947. Schlueter, June."How to Get intoA Doll House: Ibsen'sPlay as an Introduction to Drama." Shafer63-68. Schneir, Miriam,ed. Feminism: TheEssentialHistoricalWritings.New York:Random, 1979. Shafer,Yvonne,ed. Approaches to Teaching Ibsen'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's Foreword. Miss Julie. Six Playsof Strindberg. Trans. Elizabeth GardenCity:DoubleSprigge. day,1955.61-73. Valency, Maurice.TheFlowerand theCastle:An Introduction to ModernDrama. 1963.New York:Schocken,1982. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory oftheLeisureClass. NewYork: ModernLibrary-Random, 1931. Weigand, Hermann. TheModern Ibsen:A Reconsideration. New York:Holt, 1925. Woerner, Roman. "Ibsen und die Frauenfragen." Einigesuber Ibsen: ZurFeierihrer Mai-Festspiele alljahrlichen herausvonderIbsenvereinigung gegeben zu Dusseldorf 1909.Berlin: 1909. 13-19. A. E. Ibsen theMasterBuilder.New York:Holt, 1929. Zucker,

1917. Archer.13 vols. New York:Scribner's, 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. and ed. EinarHaugenand Koht,Halvdan.LifeofIbsen.Trans. A. E. Santaniello.New York:Blom, 1971. Ibsen. Le Gallienne, Eva. Introduction. EightPlays. By Henrik Trans. Eva Le Gallienne. New York: Modern LibraryRandom, 1981.xii-xxxiii. Dichtung: Marholm,Laura. "Die Frau in derskandinavischen Leben 1 (1890): Der Noratypus." FreieBuhne furmodernes 168-71. and Lisa-Lone Marker."The FirstNora: Marker, Frederick, Premiere ofA Doll's House." IbsenarNoteson theWorld boken 11(1970-71): 84-100. of Ibsen." Partisan McCarthy, Mary."The Willand Testament Review23 (1956): 74-80. "A Doll's House: Commentary." The Walter. McFarlane, James London:Oxford UP, Oxford Ibsen. Vol.5. Ed. McFarlane. 1961.435-64. 8 vols. 1960-77. Meyer, Annie. "A Prophetof theNew Womanhood."Lippincott'sMonthly Magazine 54 (1894): 375-80. Meyer, Michael. Ibsen. GardenCity:Doubleday,1971. Alla. "Ibsen'sWomen." Independent (1907):909-14. Nazimova, Pearce,Richard."The Limitsof Realism."CollegeEnglish31 (1970): 335-43. Reinert, Otto. "TeachingA Doll House: An Outline."Shafer 55-62. ofA Rosenberg, Marvin."Ibsen versus Ibsen:Or,TwoVersions Doll House." ModernDrama 12 (1969): 187-96. Rossi,Alice,ed. TheFeminist Papers:FromAdams toDe Beau-

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions