Hedda is especially limited in exercising her considerable intelligence and fiery lust for life

because she is a woman living in a society dominated by men: a patriarchy. The men in her social
circle have war, politics, and wild drinking parties to give scope to their action, thought, and
feeling. In contrast, the women in the play mostly care for and serve the men, as Tesman’s Aunt
Julle cares for her rather dependent nephew, or as Mrs. Elvsted serves to inspire the self-
centered Ejlert Lövborg (revealingly, Mrs. Elvsted thinks her own husband treats her like cheap
and useful property). Tesman sees Hedda as a prize and as the mother of his child, while Lövborg
sees her as a fascinating maze, and Judge Brack sees her as a charming pet and toy. No one sees
Hedda for the great and destructive soul she really is. In response, Hedda attempts to downplay
her womanhood—by repressing her pregnancy as best she can, among other things—and to
influence and even participate in the sphere of action traditionally dominated by men. She
seems to have established her early comradeship with Lövborg, for example, both to subtly
challenge her father’s authority and also to live vicariously through her male comrade’s
confessions. As Hedda explains, it’s understandable that a young girl should want to find out
about a world that is supposed to be forbidden to her. The central symbol for her fascination
with this male world, then, is General Gabler’s pistols, the phallic objects of authority and power
which Hedda takes delight in brandishing.

While it would be an oversimplification to say that Hedda’s nihilism and cruelty are a product of
patriarchal oppression, it is not too much to say that provincialism and patriarchy characterize
the social world Hedda wages quiet war against.

Patriarchy as an ideology has created a world in which women are always

inferior to men. Before the word of feminism appeared in 1890s, women had

been unconsciously put under the control of men and only few of them were

capable to fight this ideology in order to gain their own rights as human

beings. This ideology of patriarchy has affected women’s existence by, for

example, ignoring their voice and pressing their creativity. Here, women are

always regarded only as the other objects that complete all qualities of being a

man,

-----------

Henrik Ibsen, one of the leading modern playwrights, realizes the social problems arising out of
the marginalization of women of his age. His dramatic art exposes an in-depth exploration of
familial, social, cultural, economic, and psychological conflicts faced by women in everyday life.
Ibsen has earned popularity and fame among audience, critics, reviewers, and scholars around
the globe through shedding a new light on his women. The article, entitled “Ibsen’s Treatment of
Women,” focuses on Ibsen’s plays in the light of his attitude towards female subjugation,
marginalization, subordination, psychological trauma, dilemma, rights, and the suffrage of
women, and oppression of the 19th century Scandinavian bourgeois society. It makes a thorough
study of Ibsen’s treatment of women in different phases of his literary career. It examines also
Ibsen’s skills in exploring powerful women, both in their individual spheres and in relation to the
people around them. Thus, it endeavors to reveal various aspects of the women in the Ibsen
canon.-

------------

The portrayals of victimization by motherhood, or imminent motherhood, are as memorable as

that in Hedda Gabler [14]. While Hedda is pregnant, the play abounds in intimations of her
condition; as Janet Suzman claimed: “Hedda’s pregnancy draws together every strand of the
play.” Hedda is the only main character who does not refer to her expectations; in response to
the allusions to the possibility of pregnancy made by her husband Tesman, his aunt Juliane
Tesman, and Judge Brack, she reacts with irritation or even anger. She supplies the reason
herself when Brack mentions the prospect of a sacred responsibility. For the maternal calling of
the conventional 19th century woman is thwarted in Hedda by tendencies that are viewed as
masculine. The influence of her motherless, father-dominated upbringing is everywhere evident:
in her taste for horses and pistols; in her eager anticipation of a contest between Tesman and
Lovborg for the university professorship; even in General Gabler’s portrait in the opening state
directions, before we meet characters, as occupying a prominent place in the Tesmans’ drawing
room. Explaining the play’s title, Ibsen wrote: “I intended to indicate that as a personality she is
to be regarded rather as her father’s daughter than as her husband’s wife” [7]. As Elizabeth
Hardwick [15] also pointed out that Hedda’s husband is “much more of a girl than she is”
Hardwick [15], while she was brought up by a general, he was raised by two maiden aunts.

Hedda’s society provides few outlets for her masculine ambition. Her comment to Brack–‘I just
stand here and shoot into the blue’ is loaded in multiple respects. In the face of her own
aimlessness, she seeks masculine experience by pressing Lovborg to confess his debaucheries to
her as her insight into a world ‘that she isn’t supposed to know anything about’, conjecturing
that she could make it for her life’s goal to encourage Tesman to go into politics. As in the play,
Hedda Gabler, a clash between Hedda’s unfeminine inclinations and the step she takes down the
feminine path of marriage and pregnancy results in hysteria. Her gestures are as telling as her
words: drawing the curtains, seeking fresh air, walking nervously around the room, raising her
arms, clenching her fists, drumming her fingers, physically abusing Thea Elvested. Hedda is the
victim of traditional thinking to move from hysteria to feminism. Trapped by Brack between two
conventional attitudes; her fear of scandal and her abhorrence of adultery; she fulfils the
prediction she makes upon Tesman’s joyous response to the news of her pregnancy. She has
become pregnant during the couple’s six-month honey-moon; Miss Tesman presses for a
revelation, hinting to Tesman that might be found for the empty rooms in the house. As an
unmarried, childless woman, she takes on one foster-child after another; having raised Tesman,
who acknowledges to his ‘Auntie Julle’ that ‘You’ve always been both father and mother to me’,
she has recently filled her life by nursing her ailing sister Rina, and after Rina’s death, she plans
to replace her with another invalid. Contrast to Hedda, who regards such care as a ‘burden’, is
evident [7].

The antithesis between Hedda Gabler, a mother in spite of herself, and Juliane Tesman, who
idealizes motherly woman from the vantage point of one who has known it not as a biological
necessity but as a chosen, foster calling is paradigmatic in Ibsen’s plays, recurring with different
contours in Little Eyolf.

------------------------

Women in Hedda Gabler

Modern criticism of Hedda Gabler rests on the idea that a male dominated society repressed
and limited Hedda’s brilliance.

Ibsen studied the repressed conditions of women in many of his plays; however his own view of
women was limited by his “celebration of their primary role as the nurturing mothers whose
mission is to educate the young.” No wonder there is no solution for Hedda but suicide. She
clearly would never make a good mother, and there was nothing else for such a woman to do
unless she could nurture a man’s genius, as Thea did. Nurturing genius, however, was clearly not
Hedda’s gift. General Gabler’s pistols were, finally, the only option for his daughter.

Hedda Gabler is set about thirty years earlier than when it was written. Clurman writes that:

It was a period, Ibsen once remarked, when women were not allowed to play any role apart
from marriage and motherhood. The “protection” they enjoyed separated them from the
realities of life. Hedda shuns everything painful and ugly; she cannot tolerate the sight of
sickness or death. She is already pregnant when the play opens, but mention of it is abhorrent to
her….Small wonder then that she admits that all she is good for is boring herself to death.

And yet Thea breaks out of this sheltered life. Hedda is a victim, but she is also a coward.

Both George Tesman and Eilert Loevborg develop their identities through their professions. They
compete for fame and position through training, effort and intellect. Hedda, however, has no
profession, nor does she care about anything. She has no interest in what Eilert writes, only in
his potential fame and glamour, and in his rivalry with her husband. She can only compete with
Thea for control of a man, not to develop a personal identity. Worse, Hedda’s control is
destructive, while Thea’s is healing and creative. Hedda married George Tesman to establish a
social life as the wife of a professor; she wanted to control Eilert Loevborg destructively to rival
Thea’s constructive control as the inspiring force behind his genius.

Hedda’s only stable identity is as General Gabler’s daughter. She has no life of her own, no
projects of her own. Although she envies Eilert Loevborg’s freedom and wildness, she shows no
interest at all in the content of his writing, nor is she willing to risk scandal personally. She
cooperates, in short, with the extremely limited role offered by her social condition.

Both the play and Hedda herself are limited to what can be said and done around a lady. As
Lyons points out, The world beyond Hedda’s house includes:

…drunkenness, prostitution, financial reckless-ness…the exploitation of women, and the threat

of poverty….(Loevborg)…dies from an accidental gunshot wound in an apartment that functions,
at least temporarily, as a brothel….

The respectable Judge Brack is obviously familiar with Mademoiselle Danielle, the prostitute in
whose rooms Eilert died. Further, Brack tries to use his knowledge that Eilert used Hedda’s
revolver to blackmail Hedda into having an adulterous affair with him. Brack has evidently
enjoyed a series of such adulterous relationships with other respectable women. Even the
respectable, scandal-fearing Hedda, is clearly fascinated by hearing about the disreputable
goings-on at Mademoiselle Danielle’s.

Hedda’s fascination with the forbidden male world of freedom and excess draws her to both
Loevborg and Brack, and finally leads to her destruction. Her gender, class, and loathing of
everything ugly limit what she is able or willing to hear about the outside world. Events are
reported to the house, but only in terms acceptable to Hedda. Such restraint is imposed by
society, as well as by Hedda’s wishes.

Her lack of knowledge of the outside world probably is a major factor in her romantic
idealization of Loevborg’s wildness and lack of self-control. She has never seen him drunk or in
sordid surroundings; she only heard his stories about his escapades and imagines him carousing
as a Dionysian god with vine-leaves in his hair instead of as a stumbling drunk frequenting
brothels. Hedda does not even understand the concept of Dionysios correctly. She just is aware
of the carousing and freedom of the god, not of his creative inspiration and potential for creating
social cohesion.

Her questioning of Loevborg years earlier showed her desire for information about this
forbidden male world. But, ultimately, Hedda is determined not to break the taboos of her
society and when she felt she had to choose between Loevborg and following the rules, she
chose the rules and a loveless marriage to Tesman.

Ultimately, Hedda never does understand the creative genius which Thea is able to nurture in
Eilert Loevborg. Hedda romanticizes his weaknesses, confusing his lack of self-control with god-
like courage. She idealizes his death as noble instead of a sordid accident, and when she is
trapped by Brack’s blackmail, she chooses the coward’s way out—suicide—to escape from a
situation largely of her own making.

To conclude, we can say that Hedda is a creature of the nineteenth century, and that her
romantic ignorance of what matters and what is real would not occur today. However, it would
be foolish to deny that there are plenty of people, now and always, who dislike the petty
limitations of real life and take refuge in their fantasies, confusing rebellion with creativity, self-
indulgence with freedom and destruction with fulfillment.

--------------------MISS JULIANA TESMAN

BACK NEXT

Character Analysis

You’re probably tired of hearing us talk about women in Hedda Gabler having empty lives. But
unfortunately, the same is true for Miss Tesman. She has to address this problem just like the
other female characters. Her answer is caretaking – looking after others to make up for the void.
We know that she lives with her invalid sister and devotes her life to looking after her. She enjoys
giving up things for George because, as she says, "What other joy do I have in the world?" Notice
that after Rina dies, Julie is all too eager to have another invalid, even if it’s a stranger, move into
her house. In her own words: "I do so much need someone to live for—I, too." It’s interesting
that she says "I, too" – we wonder if Julie, as the oldest woman in the play, really gets it, and
perhaps has a greater understanding of this universal female problem.

Because she has devoted her life to others, like George, Miss Tesman firmly believes that he can
do no wrong and that those who oppose him can do no right. Just look at the way she talks
about Eilert, as a "poor misguided creature" who is now "lying […] in the bed he made" as
punishment for standing against her nephew. When she hears that Eilert is coming back to town,
she declares that she can’t "for the world believe that he’d stand in [George’s] way again." Like
Mrs. Elvsted, Aunt Julie’s character demonstrates that, once a woman chooses a reason to live, it
defines not only her actions and existence, but her very mindset and values.

-----------------------

MRS. ELVSTED

BACK NEXT

Character Analysis

As a woman in Hedda Gabler, Mrs. Elvsted struggles with the same question as Hedda and Miss
Tesman: to what or whom can she possible devote her life? Her answer is a simple one: Eilert
Løvborg. Mrs. Elvsted isn’t exaggerating when she claims to have reformed, if indirectly, the
formerly debauched Eilert. Løvborg himself confirms this when he sits in the parlor with Hedda
and Thea. She has really inspired him, both personally and professionally. He even gives her
credit as the co-author of his book, and Tesman confirms the value of such a muse when he
declares that Eilert has never written this well before.

What is it about Thea that gives her so much power? That’s the question that Hedda poses,
aloud, at the end of Act III. Mrs. Elvsted isn’t manipulative, strong-willed, or even that intelligent.
Eilert even tells Hedda that Thea is "too stupid" to understand their past relationship. So how
can she "hold [Eilert’s] fate in her hands"? Thea may lack some of Hedda’s abilities, but she
makes up for lost skills with sheer femininity. With her flowing hair, slight figure, big blue eyes,
and naturally sweet demeanor, Mrs. Elvsted is the perfect picture of a Victorian housewife. This
is one of the reasons Hedda resents her so much, especially if you buy into the "Hedda wants to
be a man but is ashamed at her lack of femininity" theory. Just look at Hedda’s obsession with
Thea’s hair, arguably the symbol of her womanly ways. Hedda refers in Act I to Thea’s "irritating
hair that she was always showing off." Ibsen’s stage directions note that it is "remarkably light,
almost a white-gold, and unusually abundant and wavy." Compare this to the description of
Hedda’s hair, which is "an agreeable brown" and "not particularly abundant." As children, Hedda
used to pull Thea’s hair and threaten to burn it off – which she does again, by the way, at the end
of Act II (old habits die hard, we guess). When Hedda sees Mrs. Elvsted working side-by-side with
her husband to reconstruct the lost manuscript, she strokes her hair, and we know what she’s
thinking by this line: "here you are, sitting now beside Tesman—just as you used to sit with Eilert
Løvborg." This is perhaps Hedda’s first moment of insecurity. She’s wondering if Thea, the
ultimate woman, will do for George what Hedda herself cannot.

Of course, it’s equally possible that Hedda resents Mrs. Elvsted because she’s ruined everything
Hedda likes about Eilert. She’s "broken" his wild spirit. On the other hand, maybe Hedda doesn’t
resent Thea at all – maybe she’s just a pawn in Hedda’s amusing game.

But for all her weak and feminine ways (unfortunately, these adjectives DO go together in Hedda
Gabler), Mrs. Elvsted is perhaps the most (or only?) courageous character in the play. Look at her
dialogue with Hedda when the confesses to leaving her husband. "God knows [people] will say
what they please," she says. "I only did what I had to do." To leave your husband for another
man in the 1890s was a bold move. Mrs. Elvsted says "to hell with the rules" the same way that
Eilert used to back in his alcoholic days. It’s odd that Hedda doesn’t recognize this – or perhaps
she does, subconsciously, which is potentially a third reason for her to dislike this woman.
Still, at the end of the day, Mrs. Elvsted is still a woman who, facing emptiness, has to devote her
life to a man. When the object of her subservience is no longer an option, she openly declares
that she "doesn’t know [her]self what [she] will do," adding that "everything’s dark for [her]
now." She even asks that ever-popular question before making her grand exit in Act III: "What
will I do with my life?"

-------------------

Hedda Gabler takes place in Norway in the late 1800s. Women are restricted by Victorian values
and prevented from having any real lives of their own. As such, they exist only in relation to men.
The women in this play all seek to solve one fundamental problem: what to do with their lives.
Emptiness and malaise are the only common factors between them, however, as the various
"solutions" to this "problem" differ greatly.

The three women in Hedda Gabler – Mrs. Elvsted, Miss Tesman, and Hedda herself – all come up
with different solutions to the "problem" weighing on women in the Victorian era. Only Hedda’s
solution is successful.

---------------------------

ategorization of Ibsen’s women

According to critics and scholars, Ibsen’s plays can be viewed as a gallery of portraits of various
kinds of men and women through social reality and psychological trauma while they are
determined to struggle for seeking truth and freedom. His women characters outshine their
male counterparts by winning the hearts of both readers and audiences, by demonstrating great
courage in times of crisis, and in face of adversity. His strong women characters are marked with
great devotion towards their ideals and enormous resolution in pursuit of individual freedom
and existence. They are actually bold, revolutionary women warriors with independent and
intelligent psychology and aspiration for spiritual emancipation. They endure great pains to
defend dignity and rights as human beings rather than subservient to the male dominated
society. An Ibsen heroine, like Nora Helmer, Mrs. Alving, and a fascinating one, Hedda Gabler, is
first and foremost a human being, rather than merely a woman. The word “woman,” in fact,
implies the “role” intended for her by the society or man, who sets norm for her. She should be
weak, gentle, comforting, caring, tame and obedient while for those unconventional women
characters through possessing strong, intelligent, ambitious, resolute, and irreconcilable
personality [2]. From Ibsen’s contemporary age to the present; they are supposed to be the
source of inspiration for today’s women socially, economically, politically, and psychologically.

While we study Ibsen’s play-texts, we are immediately impressed by his women characters that
bear the testimony of strong personality incomparable with social conventions. Generally,
Ibsen’s women characters are of two categories. One of the critical approaches to his women
characters is: a man is caught between a pair of opposing women, one is strong, independent
and deviant, and the other is weak, tame and obedient namely “the demon” and “the darling”
opposites in Asbjorn Aaserth’s term [3]. Thus, Ibsen’s heroines naturally fall into “demonic” or
unconventional category. It is the strong deviant woman who is fore-grounded in his plays, while
mild, gentle, darling women are set in the background to highlight their bold and rebellious
sisters. Sometimes, these strong women even belittle male characters. The unconventional
heroines are based on the powerful personalities consisting of strong-willed, independent,
intelligent, and full of vitality. In some cases, they are sexually passionate, erotic, proud,
temperamental, highly demanding, and easily bored with trivial daily matters. With the strong
personalities, they are confined to a malecentered society where they are deprived of basic right
and suffrage as human beings in its full-vigour. Since society is based on the patriarchal
structures and dominated by the patriarchal rules, it is simply not in such a society, a concept
such as “individual” is gendered in terms of the male gaze.

A female individual is assigned with all her duties and obligations directed by the patriarchy. Men
dominate over the “male-centric” world, while women have to be obedient and subservient.
They are usually bound in matrimony, functioning as either toys or tools to serve others. In
serving this, obligation is embedded in their social and female identity while their identity as
human being with the right to happiness, and freedom is almost completely sacrificed. In such a
patriarchal social framework, they are represented by a set of selfsacrificing and subservient
attributes; those who break away from this norm are labeled with such tags as “deviant,”
“rebellious,” or even “demonic.” Most of his women suffer from this labeling as victims of the
male dominated society for their rebellious spirit. Ibsen insightfully describes a range of
rebellious characters, and unveiled the spiritual pilgrimage; they have gone through their
persistent pursuit of emancipation, freedom, and bitter struggle to regain their identity and
power as human beings.

On the other hand, there are some Ibsen's women who fall into “the darling” categories,
including Thea Elvested in Hedda Gabler, Mrs. Linda in A Doll’s House, Bolette, Hilde in The Lady
From the Sea, Beata in Rosmersholm. The “darling” type is the embodiment of traditional
virtues: weak, gentle, caring, and compassionate, capable of unselfish love, committed to their
duties as the devoted wives and loving mothers. Scholars and critics have contributed to enrich
this approach to the portrayal of women by using different terms like “good” and “bad,” or
“mild” and “strong.” This type of categorization seems to be convincible based on Ibsen’s notes:
The mild woman represents man’s ideal image of woman, formed in accordance with the
romantic female role. The strong woman, on the other hand, contrasts with the traditional idea
of what femininity should be, i.e. her nature does not coincide with the role for her framed by
society. Male dominated society denies her formal education, or professional training, and the
possibilities of finding a job which earns a decent independent life for her. It is a society in which
women are homeless and insolvent. Ann Marie Stanton [4] points out that woman is constructed
as a social being who is obliged to give herself completely up to man and child. Those who break
away from this patriarchal social framework are certainly incompatible to conventions and will
be put to death if they cannot observe these conventions. Many rebellious women often suffer
from the persecution in such societies where the patriarchal system has been practiced for
centuries. The categorization of “the darling” and “the demon” is also gendered and based on
men’s idea about how women should behave to qualify as “good” or “evil.” Therefore, the so-
called darling/demonic or conventional/deviant division is from men’s perspective, and it serves
to confirm male dominance, socially, ideologically and even linguistically. They should be
deconstructed by the force of feminism [2].

Ibsen wants to show women as gaudy appearance and image in some plays, the role of women
has overtaken in the role of men from the aspect of importance. He creates such women
characters in his plays which are the reasons of conventionally and traditionally condemnation
and protest not only in his contemporary Norway, but also in the continental Europe, in the
conservative society in general. A conventional society is accustomed to seeing women from the
male point of view. The real position of a woman is confined to her family. The decision-maker of
a family decides about the important issues in the male dominated society, the task of a
housewife is to accept them without any debate, without any protest. The protesting image of
woman, in male attitudes, is very unjust. But, obedient woman, completely dedicated woman
long for building up a happier family, tolerated woman seek freedom despite her husband’s
negligence and cruelty. Ibsen witnesses woman beyond obstructive and oppressive diagram. The
playwright also wants to show woman’s protesting mood, their destructive forces through
creating powerful female characters, including Nora, Mrs. Alving, and Hedda. Ibsen, during 19th
century Scandinavian women’s liberation movement, was eager to prove himself as a prime
figure of orator in that movement (My translation).

From the above discussion, we may say that Ibsen wants to highlight a big difference between
patriarchy and matriarchy through creating women characters. Still now his female characters
demand the appreciation of readers, scholars, researchers, directors, and playwrights. In this
way, this study emphasizes on Ibsen’s women into two categories with a view to unveiling social,
economic, and women’s images of his age.