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: 28-01-2016 23:13 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 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JOAN TEMPLETON

Criticism,
The DollHouseBacklash: andIbsen
Feminism,

A Doll House' is no moreabout women'srightsthan more. She embodies the comedyas well as the
Richard
Shakespeare's HIis aboutthedivinerightof kings, tragedyof modernlife"(vii). In theModernLan-
or Ghostsabout syphilis.. . . Its themeis theneed of guageAssociation's Approachesto Teaching A Doll
everyindividualto findout thekindof personhe or she House, theeditorspeaksdisparagingly of "reduc-
is and to striveto becomethatperson. tionistviews of [A Doll House] as a feminist

J
(M. Meyer457)
drama."Summarizing a "majortheme"inthevol-
umeas "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 withfem-
woman question." His rescuers customarily
inism" have value only if theyare monitored,
citea statement thedramatist madeon 26 May 1898
"properlychanneledand keptfirmly linkedto Ib-
at a seventieth-birthday banquetgivenin hishonor sen'stext"(Shafer,Introduction32).
by the Norwegian Women's Rights League: Removingthe woman question fromA Doll
House is presentedas partof a corrective effortto
I thankyouforthetoast,butmustdisclaimthehonorof freeIbsenfromhiserroneousreputation as a writer
havingconsciouslyworkedforthewomen'srightsmove- of 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 century's greatesticonoclast
not been the whole purpose. My task has been the
descriptionof humanity. (Ibsen, Letters337)
and offeredthatmisreadingto the publicas The
Quintessenceof Ibsenism. Ibsen, it is now de
rigueurto 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 bi-
manythat far exceed the confinesof her small
ographerMichaelMeyerurgesall reviewers ofDoll
world,2is irrelevantto theessentialmeaningof A
House revivalsto learn Ibsen's speech by heart
Doll House, a play,in RichardGilman'sphrase,
(774), and JamesMcFarlane,editorof TheOxford
"pitchedbeyondsexualdifference" (65). Ibsen,ex-
Ibsen,includesitin hisexplanatory materialon A
plainsRobertBrustein,"was completelyindiffer-
Doll House, under"Some Pronouncements of the
entto [thewomanquestion]exceptas a metaphor
Author,"as thoughIbsenhad beenspeakingofthe
forindividualfreedom"(105). Discussingtherela-
play (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 thehighlytopi-
in 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. Adamsex-
women's rightsmovementis not really about
plains,"A Doll House represents a womanimbued
womenat all. "Fiddle-faddle,"pronouncedR. M.
withtheidea ofbecominga 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, Ei-
The Demon in theHouse
narHaugen,thedoyenofAmericanScandinavian
studies,insistedthat "Ibsen's Nora is not just a [Norais] a daughterof Eve. [A]nirresistibly
be-
womanarguingforfemaleliberation;she is much witchingpieceoffemininity. [Her]chargethatin

28

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Joan Templeton 29

all theyearsof theirmarriagetheyhaveneverexchanged In a classic 1925 study,Weigandlabors through

shehas
one seriouswordaboutseriousthingsis incorrect: forty-nine pages to demonstratethat Ibsen con-
quiteforgotten howseriouslyTorvaldlecturedheron the ceivedof Nora as a silly,lovablefemale.At thebe-
subjectsof forgery and lyingless thanthreedaysago. ginning,Weigandconfesses,he was, likeall men,
(Weigand27, 64-65)
momentarily shakenbytheplay: "Havinghad the
misfortune to be bornofthemalesex,weslinkaway
The a prioridismissalof women'srightsas the in shame, vowing to mend our ways." The
subjectofA Doll House is a gentlemanly backlash, chastenedcritic'sremorse is short-lived,however, as
a refusalto acknowledge theexistence ofa tiresome a "clear male voice,
irreverently breakingthe si-
reality, "thehoaryproblemof women'srights,"as lence,"stunswithitscriticalacumen:"'The mean-
Michael 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,
questionsofgendercan onlybe tediousintrusions. Weigandspendsthenightporingoverthe"littlevol-
But forovera hundredyears,Nora has beenun- ume." Dawn arrives,bringing withitthereturnof
der directsiegeas exhibiting the mostperfidious "masculine
self-respect" (26-27). Forthereis only
characteristics of hersex;theoriginaloutcryofthe one explanationfortherevoltof "thiswinsomelit-
1880sis swollennowto a mightychorusof blame. tlewoman" (52) and herchildishdoor slamming:
She is denouncedas an irrational and frivolous nar- Ibsen meantA Doll
House as comedy.Nora's er-
cissist;an "abnormal"woman,a "hysteric"; a vain,
raticbehaviorat thecurtain'sfallleavesus laugh-
unlovingegoist who abandons her familyin a ingheartily, forthereis no doubtthatshewillreturn
paroxysm of selfishness.
The proponents ofthelast hometo "revert, imperceptibly, to herroleof song-
view would seem to thinkIbsen had in mind a birdand charmer"(68). Afterall, sinceNora is
housewifeMedea, whose crueltyto husbandand
childrenhetailoreddownto fittheframed,domes- an
irresistibly
bewitching pieceof femininity,an extrava-
tic worldof realistdrama. gantpoetand romancer, utterlylackingin senseof fact,
The firstattackswerelaunchedagainstNora on and endowedwitha naturalgiftforplay-acting which
moral groundsand againstIbsen, ostensibly, on makesherinstinctively dramatizeherexperiences:how
"literary"ones. The outragedreviewers ofthepre- can thesettlement failof a fundamentally comicappeal?
miereclaimedthatA Doll House didnothaveto be (64)
takenas a seriousstatement about women'srights
because theheroineof act 3 is an incomprehensi- The mostpopularwayto renderNora inconse-
ble transformation of theheroineof acts 1 and 2. quentialhas beento attackhermorality;whatever
This reasoningprovidedan ideal way to dismiss thevocabularyused,thearguments haveremained
Nora altogether;nothingshe said needed to be muchthe same forovera century.Oswald Craw-
takenseriously,and herdoor slammingcould be ford,writingin the Fortnightly Reviewin 1891,
writtenoffas sillytheatrics(Markerand Marker scoldedthatwhileNora maybe "charming as doll-
85-87). womenmaybe charming,"she is "unprincipled"
The argumentforthetwoNoras,whichstillre- (732). A halfcenturylater,afterFreudianismhad
mains popular,4has had its mostdeterminedde- produceda widelyaccepted"clinical"languageof
fenderin the NorwegianscholarElse H0st, who disapproval,Nora could be called "abnormal."
arguesthatIbsen'scarefree, charming"lark"could MaryMcCarthylistsNora as one ofthe"neurotic"
neverhavebecomethe"newlyfledgedfeminist." In womenwhomIbsen,shecuriouslyclaims,was the
any case it is the "childish,expectant,ecstatic, firstplaywright to put on stage(80). For Maurice
broken-hearted Nora" who makesA Doll House Valency,Nora is a case studyof femalehysteria, a
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,impul-
and whollyunsympathetic. sive,romantic, quiteimmunefromfeelings ofguilt,
The most unrelentingattempton record to and, at bottom,notespeciallyfeminine"(151-52).
trivializeIbsen'sprotagonist, and a favoritesource More recentassaultson Nora havearguedthat
forNora'slaterdetractors, is HermannWeigand's.5 her forgery to obtainthe moneyto save herhus-

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
band's lifeprovesherirresponsibility and egotism.
BrianJohnston condemnsNora'sloveas "unintel-
ligent" and her crime as "a trivialact which
nevertheless turnsto evilbecauseitrefusedto take
theuniversal ethicalrealmintoconsideration at all"
(97); Ibsen uses Torvald'sfamouspet names for
Nora-lark, squirrel-togivehera "strong'animal'
identity"and to underscoreherinabilityto under-
standtheethicalissuesfacedbyhumanbeings(97).
EvertSprinchorn arguesthatNora had onlyto ask
herhusband'skindlyfriends (entirelymissingfrom
theplay)forthenecessary "
money: . . anyother
. feminist overlooksor ignores,namely,theindica-
womanwouldhavedone so. ButNora knewthatif
sheturnedto one of Torvald'sfriendsforhelp,she
would have had to share her role of saviorwith
someoneelse" (124).
EvenNora'ssweettoothis evidenceofherunwor-
thiness,as wesee her"surreptitiously devouring the
forbidden[by her husband] macaroons," even
"brazenlyoffer[ing] macaroonsto Doctor Rank,
and finallylyingin herdenialthatthemacaroons
arehers";eatingmacaroonsin secretsuggeststhat
"Nora is deceitfuland manipulative fromthestart"
and that her exitthus "reflectsonly a petulant
woman'sirresponsibility" (Schlueter 64-65).As she
eats the cookies, Nora adds insultto injuryby
declaringherhiddenwishto say "deathand dam-
nation"in frontofherhusband,thusrevealing, ac-
cording to Brian Downs, of Christ's College,
Cambridge,"somethinga triflefebrileand mor-
bid" in hernature(Downs 130).
Much has beenmadeof Nora'srelationship with
Doctor Rank,thesurestproof,itis argued,of her
dishonesty. Nora is revealedas la belledame sans
merciwhenshe"suggestively queriesRankwhether
a pairof silkstockingswillfither" (Schlueter65);
she "flirtscruellywith[him]and toyswithhis af-
fectionforher,drawinghim on to findout how
strongherhold overhimactuallyis" (Sprinchorn
124).
Nora'sdetractors haveoftenbeen,fromthefirst,
her husband's defenders.In an argumentthat
claimsto rescueNora and Torvaldfrom"thecam-
paignfortheliberation ofwomen"so thatthey"be-
comevividand disturbingly real."EvertSprinchorn
pleads thatTorvald"has givenNora all themate-
rial thingsand all the sexual attentionthat any
youngwifecouldreasonablydesire.He lovesbeau-
tifulthings,and not least his prettywife" (121).
Nora is incapableof appreciating herhusbandbe-
cause she "is nota normalwoman.She is compul-
sive,highlyimaginative, and verymuchinclinedto
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Ibsen
go to extremes."Sinceitis shewhohas acquiredthe
moneyto save his life,Torvald,and not Nora, is
reallythe "wifein the family,"althoughhe "has
regardedhimselfas thebreadwinner . . . themain
supportof hiswifeand children, as anydecenthus-
bandwouldliketo regardhimself"(122).In another
defense,JohnChamberlainarguesthat Torvald
deservesoursympathy becauseheis no "merecom-
monorgardenchauvinist." IfNorawerelesstheac-
tressWeigandhas provedherto be, "thewomanin
hermightobservewhattheembarrassingly naive
tionsthatTorvald,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, shequali-
fiesneitheras 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"'(Freed-
man4). And in anycase,itis onlynaiveNora who
believesshemightmakea lifeforherself;"theau-
dience,"arguesan essayistin CollegeEnglish,"can
see mostclearlyhowNora is exchanginga practi-
cal doll'sroleforan impracticalone" (Pearce343).
We areback to thehighcondescensionof theVic-
toriansand EdwardDowden:
Inquiriesshould be set on footto ascertainwhethera
manuscriptmaynot lurkin some house in Christiania
[Oslo] entitledNora Helmer'sReflectionsinSolitude;it
wouldbe a documentof singularinterest, and probably
wouldconcludewiththewords,"TomorrowI returnto
Torvald;havebeenexactlyone weekaway;shallinsiston
a freewoman'srightto unlimitedmacaroonsas testof
his reform." (248)
In thefirstheadydaysofA Doll House Norawas
rendered powerlessbysubstituted denouements and
sequels thatsentherhome to her husband.Now
Nora'scriticstakethehigh-handed positionthatall
thefusswas unnecessary, sinceNora is nota femi-
nistheroine.And yetin thetwentieth-century case
againsther,whether Norais judgedchildish,"neu-
rotic,"or unprincipledand whetherheraccuser's
tone is one of wittyderision,clinicalsobriety,or
moralearnestness, thepurposebehindtheverdict
remainsthatof Nora'sfrightened contemporaries:
to destroyhercredibilityand poweras a represen-
tativeofwomen.The demoninthehouse,themod-
 Joan Templeton 31

ern"half-woman,"as Strindberg called herin the Second,implicitin theargument thatwouldres-

prefaceto Miss Julie,who,"now thatshehas been cue A Doll House fromfeminist "ideology"is an
discoveredhas begunto makea noise" (65), must emphaticgender-determined ideologywhosebase
be silenced,herhereticalforcesdestroyed,so that is startlingly tautological.Women'srights,it is
A Doll House can emergea safe classic,rescued claimed,is not a fitsubjectfortragedyor poetry,
fromfeminism, and Ibsencan assumehis place in because it is insufficiently representative to be
the pantheon of true artists,unsullied by the generallyand thusliterarily human.Now,ifthisis
''womanquestion"and thetopicaltaintof history. so, theexplanationcan onlybe thatmen,who al-
readypossesstherightswomenseek,areexcluded
The High Claims of Artand Tautology: fromthe femalestruggle,which is, precisely,a
"BeyondFeminism"to Men struggleforequalitywiththem.In otherwords,be-
causethesexesdo notshareinequality, woman'sde-
Nora:I don'tbelieveinthatanymore. (193) sire to be equal cannot be representative.The
nonsenseof the tautologyis doubled when this
Nora:Det trorjeg ikkelengerpa. (111) reasoning is appliedto theliterary 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
gendernonexistent, in the literarysearchforthe to heris significant onlyto the extentthatit can
self,whichtranscends and obliterates 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 DorothySayersre-
plays,getinthewayofart:"Ibsen'scase is stronger, minds us in her essay "The Human-Not-Quite-
notweaker,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 essen-
the 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 figuresprominently) is too limitedto 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 as-
tionsuitableto 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 theconse-
withpamphlets. quence),buttheendis thesame: thechildinherits

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 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 Hel-
merthesamerightsas TorvaldHelmer,and lethim
considerherhisequal. Whatis leftoftheplay?The
onlyhonestresponseis nothing,forifwe emanci-
pate Nora, freeherfromthedollhouse,thereis no
play;or,rather,thereis theresolutionof theplay,
theconfrontation betweenhusbandand wifeand
theexitthatfollows, theonlycrisisand denouement
thatcould properlyconcludetheaction.As Ibsen
explained,"I mighthonestlysaythatitwas forthe
sakeof thelastscenethatthewholeplaywas writ-
ten" (Letters300).
And to readthesceneis to meetwitha compen-
dium of everything that earlymodernfeminism
denouncedabout woman'sstate.When Nora ac-
cusesherfatherand husbandof havingcommitted
a greatsinagainstherbytreating heras ifshewere
a playmate,she providesa textbookillustration of
Wollstonecraft'smajor chargein the Vindication,
thatwomenare broughtup to be "pleasingat the
expenseof everysolidvirtue"as iftheywere"gen-
tle,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 anythingin lifeand announcesherremedy-
"I haveto tryto educatemyself"(192; "Jegma se
a oppdramegselv" 111)-she expressesnineteenth-
centuryfeminism'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 play-
thingsor servants"(Rossi 186).And finally, when
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
lessthanmenpossessa moraland intellectual na-
tureand havenotonlya rightbuta dutyto develop
it:"thegrandendoftheirexertions shouldbe to un-
foldtheirown faculties"(Wollstonecraft; qtd. in
Goulianos 149).
Ibsen'scontemporaries, thesophisticatedas well
as the crude, recognizedA Doll House as the
clearestand most substantialexpressionof the
"twomanquestion"thathad yetappeared.In Eu-
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ropeand America,fromthe 1880son, thearticles
poured forth:"Der Noratypus,""Ibsen und die
Frauenfragen," "Ibsenetla femme,""La represen-
tationfeministe etsocialed'Ibsen," "A Prophetof
theNewWomanhood,""Ibsen as a Pioneerofthe
WomanMovement."Thesearea smallsamplingof
titlesfromscholarsandjournalistswhoagreedwith
theirmorefamouscontemporaries Lou Andreas
Salome, Alla Nazimova,GeorgBrandes,and Au-
gustStrindberg, along witheveryotherwriteron
Ibsen,whetherin theimportantdailiesand week-
lies 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 or-
der."In 1890,elevenyearsafterBettyHenningsas
Nora firstslammedthe shakeybackdropdoor in
Copenhagen'sRoyalTheatre,he summarized what
A Doll House meantto theprogressives of Ibsen's
time:
The greatwaveof emancipationwhichis now sweeping
acrossthecivilizedworldmeansnominally nothingmore
thanthatwomenshouldhavetherightto education,free-
dom to work,and politicalenfranchisement-nothingin
shortbutthebareordinary ofan adulthumancrea-
rights
turein a civilizedstate. (9)
Profoundly disturbingin itsday,A Doll House re-
mainsso stillbecause,in JamesHuneker'ssuccinct
analysis,itis "theplea forwomanas a humanbe-
ing,neithermorenorlessthanman,whichthedra-
matistmade" (275).
WishfulReading:The Critic,theHeroine,
and Her Master'sVoice
Torvald:You stayrighthereand givemea reckoning.You
understandwhatyou'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 "frivo-
lous" is, afterall, essentialto the role of addle-
braineddoll thatNora playsin themarriage.And
how frivolouswas it to saveTorvald'slife?Nora's
criticsconveniently thebottomlineofNora's
forget
 Joan Templeton
"crime":Torvaldwouldhavedied ifNora had not
forged.Phobicaboutborrowing, thegravelyillhus-
bandrefuses to takeouta loan and so mustbe saved
in spiteof himself.ThatNora'slifesaving deed was
a crimeis theveryfoundation of Ibsen'sconflictbe-
tweenlaw and love;a good case could be made for
Nora as a bourgeoisAntigonein herstalwartdefi-
ance oftheworld:"A wifehasn'ta rightto saveher
husband'slife?I don'tknowmuchaboutlaws. .
I did itout of love" (149; "Skulleikkeen hustruha
retttil'a reddesin mannsliv? Jegkjennerikkelo-
venesa noye.. . Jeggjordedetjo av kjoerlighet"
84). The argument thatNora is notsufficiently ap-
preciativeof herhusband'sfondattentionsis per-
haps bestcounteredbyquotingVeblen;notingthe
commoncomplaintagainstthenewwoman,that
she "is pettedby her husband . . . [and] sur-
roundedbythemostnumerousand delicateatten-
tions[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 thatIb-
senblackensNorainthefamoussilk-stocking scene
withDoctorRank,whichso dismayedEva Le Gal-
liennethatshe simplyomittedit fromhertransla-
tion,seemsbothprudishand resolutely determined
to ignoreIbsen'spurposes.Nora, withoutreflect-
ingon thesignificance ofherfeeling, quitenaturally
prefersthe companyof the understandingand
amusingdoctorto thatof herhusband:"Yes,you
see," Nora blithelytosses off,as she and Rank
speak of theirease together, "Therearesomepeo-
ple 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 forTor-
valds;-det forstar seg" 93). It is notsurprisingthat
Rankprovidesa perfectpiano accompaniment for
Nora's famouspracticesessionand thatTorvaldis
perturbed:"Rank, stop! This is pure madness!"
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
33
(174;"Rank,holdopp; detteerjo denrenegalskap"
99). Itwouldnotbe too speculative, I think,toguess
thatRank,unlikeTorvald,wouldnotneedto fan-
tasizethatNora is a virginbeforemakinglove to
her.Throughthesilk-stocking scene,Ibsen shows
the sexual side of the Helmermesalliance,a side
Nora scarcelysees herself.And itsendingproves,
indisputably, notherdishonesty, butheressential
honorableness.WhenRankconfronts herwithhis
movingconfession ofloveas sheis aboutto ask him
forthemoneyshedesperately needs,sherefusesto
makeuse ofhisfeelings and categorically rejectshis
help: "Afterthat? . . . You can't knowanything
now" (166; "Efterdette?. . . Ingenting kanDe fa
vitenu" 94).
The claimthatNora cannotbe a feminist hero-
inebecausesheis flawedis an exampleof question
beggingsimilarto theuniversalists' argument that
A Doll House is nota feminist play because femi-
nismis ipso factoan unworthy subjectofart.Nora
fallsshortaccordingto unnamed,"self-evident"
criteriafora feminist heroine,amongwhichwould
seemto be one, some,or all of the following:an
ever-present serious-mindedness; a calm,unexcit-
able temperament; an unshakableobedienceto the
letterofthelaw,evenifitmeansthedeathofa hus-
band; perfect sincerityand honesty; and a
thoroughgoing ForA Doll House to be
selflessness.
feminist, itwould,apparently, haveto be a kindof
fourth-wall morality play with a saintly
Everyfeminist as heroine,not thisignorant,excit-
able,confused,and desperate-inshort,human-
Nora Helmer.
ButwhileNorais too flawedto represent women,
theargumentstopsshortand thecase is curiously
alteredin theclaimthatshe represents humanbe-
ings.Nora'shumanity keepsherfromrepresenting
women but not, magically,from representing
people-namelymen,and womento theextent that
whathappensto themcan happento menas well-
surelyas 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,
34 TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
thenA Doll House is melodrama,withNora as vil-
lain and Torvaldas victim,and act 3 is eitheran in-
comprehensiblebore or the most ponderously
unsuccessfulinstanceof dramaticironyin thehis-
toryof the theater.But Nora's criticshave not
claimedthatA Doll House belongsto anyinferior
subgenre.Applaudingit as a finedrama,theyen-
gage in side attackson its protagonist, snipingat
Nora to discreditherargumentsand ignoringthe
implicationsof theirown.
The incompleteness ofthisattack,whileneverac-
knowledged,is easilyexplained.To destroyNora's
identity as wifeand womanhercriticswouldhave
to "deconstruct" theplay;inthewordsofJonathan
Culler'susefuldefinition, theywouldhaveto show
howthetext"undermines thephilosophy itasserts,
or thehierarchical oppositionson which it relies"
(86). Theywouldhaveto examine what Nora says
in act 3 about herhusband,hermarriage,and her
lifeand demonstratethat her unequivocalstate-
mentsare contestedby the text.Since the textin
questionis a play,deconstructing Norawouldmean
arguingthesignificance-theinterest, worth,and
the
importance-of part of thedialogueIbsengives
Nora's foil,thatis, herhusband.It is nota matter
of absolvingTorvaldof villainy,as some of his
defendersseem to thinkit is; Ibsen was not in-
terestedin theconflictof melodrama,and in any
case poor Torvaldis obviouslynot "evil." It is a
matterof showingthathisassertionsseriouslycall
into question,delegitimize, the statements of his
wife.Not surprisingly, no one has yetrisento this
challenge,forwhileTorvaldHelmerhas had his
sympathizers, as we have seen,none of themhas
suggested thatIbsenwasofTorvald'spartywithout
knowingitor thatTorvaldcouldbe Ibsen's,or any-
one else's,raisonneurin anymodestlyenlightened
universeof theWesternworld.It would be an in-
trepidcriticindeedwhocouldseriouslyupholdthe
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 satisfy-
ingin 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 til-
fredssstillendei dette'avitemedsegselvat han har
tilgittsin hustru. ... han har liksomsatthenne
inni verdenpa ny;hunerpa enm'ateblittbade hans
hustruog hans barn tillike" 109-10). In fact,a
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Ibsen
chargefrequently leveledagainstA Doll House is
thatthehusbandseemstoo vainto be true,"an ego-
istof suchdimensions,"in HalvdanKoht'sphrase,
"thatwecan hardlytakehimseriously"(319).And
yetthe accusationsagainstNora restateher hus-
band'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 for-
bryterske!" 108]),to selfishness
and thusunwoman-
liness,when he hears her decision to leave him
("Abandon yourhome,yourhusband,yourchil-
dren.. . . Beforeall elseyou'rea wifeand mother"
[192-93;"Forlateditthjem,dinmannog dineborn!
. . . Du er forstog fremst hustruog mor" 111]).
Amusedor angry,thehusband'saccusingvoiceis
so authoritativethatin spiteofTorvald'sunworthi-
ness as moral spokesman,Nora's critics,in a
thoroughgoing and, one supposes, unconscious
identification,parrothisjudgmentsand thusread
herthroughhiseyes.TheirNora is Torvald'sNora,
a criticalperspectivethatresemblestakingOthello's
wordon Desdemona.
WishfulIntention:Or, What Ibsen Is
Supposed to Have Meant
Bernick:People shouldn'talwaysbe thinkingof them-
selvesfirst,especiallywomen. (Pillars of Society57)
Bernick:Menneskeneb0rda ikkei f0rsterekketenkepa
seg selv,og allerminstkvinnene.
(SamfundetsSt0tten32)
Anyonewho claimsthatIbsenthoughtof Nora
as a silly,hysterical,
or selfishwomanis eitherig-
noringor 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 wear-
ing?" In a perfectlyserioustone,Ibsen answered,
"A simpleblue woolendress" (Koht 318).
 Joan Templeton
AfterA Doll House had made himfamous,Ib-
senwas fondof explaining thathisheroine's"real"
namewas "Eleanora" butthatshehad beencalled
"Nora" fromchildhood.BergliotBjornsonIbsen,
theplaywright's daughter-in-law, tellsthestoryof
howsheand herhusband,Sigurd,on one ofthelast
occasionson whichtheysawIbsenoutofbed inthe
yearhe died,askedpermissionto nametheirnew-
born daughter "Eleanora." Ibsen was greatly
moved."God bless you,Bergliot,"he said to her
(157).He had,in fact,christened hisownNorawith
a preciousgift,forboth "Nora" and "Eleanora"
werenamesgiventothesisterofOle Schulerud, one
of thefewclose friendsof Ibsen'slife,who in the
earlyyearsof grindingpovertybelievedin Ibsen's
geniusand tirelessly hawkedhisfirstplayto book-
sellerafterbookseller, finallyspendinghissmallin-
heritanceto pay foritspublication.
Ibsenwas inspiredto writeA Doll House bythe
terribleeventsin thelifeof hisprotegeLaura Peter-
senKieler,a Norwegianjournalistofwhomhe was
extremely fond.Marriedto a man witha phobia
aboutdebt,shehad secretly borrowedmoneyto fi-
nance an Italian journeynecessaryforher hus-
band's recoveryfromtuberculosis.She worked
franticallyto reimburse theloan,exhausting herself
in turningout hackwork,and whenherearnings
provedinsufficient, in desperationshe forgeda
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.
Throughout theaffair,Ibsen,herconfidant and ad-
viser,wasgreatly disturbed; he broodedon thewife,
"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
love,Laura Kielerwas treatedmonstrously forher
efforts bya husbandobsessedwithhisstandingin
theeyesof theworld.In Ibsen'sworkingnotesfor
A Doll House we find:
She has committed and is proudofit;forshehas
forgery,
done it out of love forherhusband,to savehislife.But whounderstoodhimbest,reportsthismotina dis-
thishusbandof herstakeshisstandpoint, conventionally cussion of Ibsen's wholeheartedsupportof the
honorable,on thesideof thelaw,and sees thesituation
withmale eyes. (M. Meyer446)
The conflictbetweenlove and law,betweenheart
and head, betweenfeminineand masculine,is the
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
35
moral centerof A Doll House. But Ibsen would
sharpenlife'sblurrededgesto meetart'sdemand
forplausibility.The heroinewouldbe a housewife,
nota writer, and thehackworknotbad novelsbut
copying;herantagonist, thehusband,wouldnotbe
a cruelbrutebuta kindguardian:ratherthanput
herintoan asylum,he wouldmerelydenounceher
as an unfitwifeand mother,permitting herto re-
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
transform a sensationalfaitdiversintoa devastat-
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,theca-
reerjournalist,had beggedto be takenback; his
housewifewould sadly, emphaticallyrefuseto
stay.7
A yearafterA Doll House appeared,whenIb-
senwas livingin Rome,a Scandinavianwomanar-
rivedthere,who had leftherhusbandand small
daughter torunawaywithherlover.The Norwegian
exilecommunity consideredherbehaviorunnatu-
raland askedIbsenwhathe thought."It is notun-
natural,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 pieceofevidenceintheargument that
Ibsen was not interested in women'srightsis his
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,Har-
rietTaylor:"'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
women'smovement. He notesthatMill'sassertion
"seemed especiallyridiculousto Ibsen, withhis
markedindividualism"(76), and explainsthatal-
thoughIbsen had at firstlittlesympathy forfem-
inism-perhaps, Brandes guesses, because of
36 TheDoll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
"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).
A well-known, perhapsembarrassing factabout
Ibsen,neverbroughtup indiscussionsdisclaiming
hisinterestinwomen'srights, is thatwhenhe made
thebanquetspeechdenying thathehad consciously
workedforthe movement,he was primarilyin-
terestedinyoungwomenand annoyedbytheelderly
feministswho surrounded him. During the
seventieth-birthday celebrations, Ibsen constantly
exhibited hismarkedand, as MichaelMeyerhas it,
"ratherpatheticlongingforyounggirls"(773). He
had alreadyhad severalromanticfriendships, in-
cludingone thathad caused a familyscandal and
threatened to wreckhismarriage. In thelightofthis
fullydocumentedbiographicalinformation about
the aging playwright, is his intentionin A Doll
House morelikelyto be revealedbywhathe said in
irritationat a banquetor bywhathe wrotetwenty
yearsearlierin sketching out his play?
A womancannotbe herself inthesocietyoftoday,which
a masculinesociety,withlaws writtenby
is exclusively
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, theunabashedlyfemi-
nistPillars of Society;8 both playsreflectIbsen's
extremely privilegedfeminist education,whichhe
shared with few other nineteenth-century male
authorsand whichhe owedto a trioof extraordi-
narywomen: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
translatedtheFrenchplaysIbsenputon as a young
stagemanagerat theBergentheater.She was prob-
ablythefirst"New Woman"he had evermet.She
pitiedtheinsolventyoungwriter, took himunder
herwing,and broughthimhome.She had passed
herstrongfeminist principleson to hercharge,the
outspokenand irrepressible Suzannah,whoadored
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Ibsen
herstrong-minded stepmother and whosefavorite
authorwas George Sand. The second timeIbsen
metSuzannah he asked her to marryhim.Hjordis,
the fierceshield-maidenof The Vikingsat Hel-
geland,theplayoftheirengagement, and Svanhild,
the strong-willed heroineof Love's Comedy,the
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
themostactivefeminists in nineteenth-century Eu-
ropeand 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
feelingsmatter,is thatwomenshouldhavetheright
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 be-
come a strongmovementand thetopicof theday
in Scandinavia. Collett was in Munich in 1877,
whenIbsenwas hardat workon PillarsofSociety,
and Ibsen'sbiographerKohtspeculatesthatIbsen
mayhavedeliberately proddedherto talkaboutthe
women'smovement in orderto getmaterialforhis
dialogue (313). In anycase, theplayundoubtedly
owesmuchto theconversations intheIbsenhouse-
hold,as wellas to theNorwegiansuffragette Aasta
Hansteen,themostnotoriouswomaninthecoun-
try.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
 Joan Templeton
has been,sinceantiquity, themostquintessentially
femaleactivity literature-theyare "busy sew-
in
ing" (15)-as theylistento thetownschoolmaster
readaloud fromWomanas theServantofSociety.
Lona Hesselburstsin,and whentheladiesask her
howshecan aid their"SocietyfortheMorallyDis-
abled," shesuggests,"I can airitout" (39; "Jegvil
lufteut" 22). Returning fromAmerica,whereshe
is rumoredto have sung in saloons (even for
money!),lectured,and written a book, Lona is the
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 nineteenth-
century spinsterwhodevotesherlifeto a malerela-
tive.Martha'sstorymayhavehad itssourcein The
Governor'sDaughters.Like Collett'sMargarethe,
Marthahad onceloveda youngmanbut,too mod-
estto declareherfeelings,suffered in silence.She
nowlivesforherbrother, who is insufferablewhen
he speaks of her; she is a "nonentity"("ganske
ubetydelig"), he explains,"who'lltakeon whatever
comes along" (57; "som man kan settetilhvader
forefaller"32). It is in explainingMartha'sexem-
plaryfunctionin lifethatBernickspeakstheline,
"People shouldn'talwaysbe thinking ofthemselves
first,especiallywomen"(57; "Menneskeneborda
ikkei forsterekketenkep'a seg selv,og allerminst
kvinnene"32). Dina Dorf, Bernick'sward,dis-
regardsthishappymaxim,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 learnsaf-
tereightyearsof marriage:"I haveto tryto edu-
catemyself. . . 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 themostrad-
icallyfeminist worksof nineteenth-century litera-
ture.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-
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
37
neuse,shesummarizes hispointofviewforB3ernick
and therest: "This societyof yoursis a bachelors'
club.You don'tsee women"(117;"Jertsamrfunn er
et samfunnav peppersvenn-sjele; I serikkekvin-
nen" 65).
It is simplynottrue,then,thatIbsenwas notin-
terestedin feminism. It is also nottruethat"there
is no indicationthatIbsenwas thinking of writing
a feminist playwhenhe firstbegan to workseri-
ously on A Doll House in the summerof 1879"
(Valency150). In thespringof thatyear,whileIb-
sen was planninghis play,a scandalous incident,
easilyavailablein thebiographies,took place that
provesnot onlyIbsen'sinterest in women'srights
but his passionatesupportforthemovement.Ib-
sen 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,occasion-
allyeloquentspeech,partof whichfollows:
Is there
anyone inthisgatheringwhodaresassertthatour
ladiesare inferiorto us in culture,
or intelligence,
or
knowledge, or artistic
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 womenwereespe-
ciallycontemptible, 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 hisvoicethundereditwalsas thoughhewereclarify-
inghisownthoughts, as histonguechastised
itwasas
though hisspirit
werescouring thedarkness
insearchof
hispresentspiritual
goal--hispoem[A Doll House]-
as thoughhewerepersonally bringing
outhistheories,
incarnatinghischaracters.
Andwhenhe wasdone,he
38 The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
wentout:intothehall,tookhisovercoatand walked
home. (M. Meyer450)
In 1884,fiveyearsafterA Doll House had made
Ibsena recognizedchampionofthefeminist cause,
he joined withH. E. Berner,presidentof theNor-
wegianWomen'sRightsLeague,and withhisfellow
Norwegianwriters Bjornson,Lie, and Kielland,in
signinga petitionto the Storting,theNorwegian
parliament,urgingthepassage of a bill establish-
ing separatepropertyrightsformarriedwomen.
Whenhe returned thepetitionto Bjornson,Ibsen
wrylycommentedthattheStortingshouldnotbe
interested in men'sopinions: "To consultmen in
sucha matteris likeaskingwolvesiftheydesirebet-
terprotectionforthesheep" (Letters228). He also
spoke of his fearsthatthe currentcampaignfor
universalsuffrage wouldcometo nothing.The so-
lution,whichhe despairedof seeing,wouldbe the
formation of a "strong,resoluteprogressiveparty"
thatwould includein itsgoals "the statutory im-
provement of thepositionof woman" (229).
It is foolishto applytheformalist notionthatart
is neversullied by argumentto Ibsen's middle-
periodplays,written at a timewhenhe was an out-
spoken and directfighterin what he called the
"mortalcombatbetweentwoepochs"(Letters123).
and Ibsen
Ibsenwas fiercely hisownman,refusing all hislife
to be claimed by organizationsor campaignsof
manysorts,includingtheWomen'sRightsLeague
and themovement to removethemarkof Sweden
fromtheNorwegianflag.And hehad a deeplycon-
servativestreakwheremannerswereconcerned(ex-
cept whenhe lost his temper),forhe was acutely
suspiciousof show.Temperamentally, Ibsenwas a
loner.But he was also, as GeorgBrandesdeclared,
"a bornpolemist"(47). Whileitis truethatIbsen
neverreducedlifeto "ideas," itis equallytruethat
he was passionatelyinterested in the eventsand
ideas of hisday.He was as deeplyanchoredin his
timeas anywriterhas been beforeor since.Writ-
ingto hisGermantranslator a yearafterthepubli-
cationof A Doll House, Ibsen offeredone of the
truestself-appraisalsa writerhas evermade:
EverythingthatI have writtenis intimately connected
withwhatI have livedthrough,evenif I have not lived
Everynewworkhas servedmeas emancipation
itmyself.
and catharsis;fornoneof us can escapetheresponsibil-
ityand theguiltof thesocietyto whichwe belong.
(Hundrearsutgave 402; mytrans.)9
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 certainlyno 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
titlethroughout; references in Englishto PillarsofSocietyand
A Doll House areto Fjelde's Ibsen: TheCompleteMajor Prose
Plays (15-118;125-96).References to theoriginaltextsaretoIb-
sens 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 non-
feministhas become so widespreadthateven feminist critics
honorit.Elaine HoffmanBaruchcan termthedrama"thefem-
inistplaypar excellence"and yetreferto "thespeechin which
[Ibsen]deniedbeinga feminist inA Doll House" (387),accepting
theidea thatNora'smeaningforfeminism is essentiallydiffer-
entfromIbsen'sintention. MiriaLm Schneiranthologizesthelast
sceneof theplayinFeminism:TheEssentialHistoricalWritings
butexplainsitsinclusionas justified"whatever[Ibsen's]inten-
tion" and in spiteof his speech(179).
4 See, forexample,RobertBrLlstein (49) and MarvinRosen-
berg,whosearticleis a rehashof H0st'spoints,althoughRosen-
bergseemsunacquaintedwithherwell-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,
responding thatsheeventookTorvald'sderogatory
so violently
comments on Nora'sfather as referencesto herownfather. More
thantenyearslater,GeorgBrandeswrotean articleclaiming,in-
explicablyand rathernastily, thatNora'soriginalhad borrowed
the moneynot to save her husband'slifebut to decorateher
house.Widelycirculatedin thepress,thearticlecaused Laura
Kielergreatdistress;shebeggeda friend of Ibsen'sto ask thedra-
matistto publisha denialof Brandes'sassertion.Ibsenrefused
absolutely,replying thathe did notunderstandwhyhe should
be broughtin to denywhattheKielerscould denythemselves;
he agreedto see Laura Kieler,however, and she laterdescribed
a four-hour interviewin Ibsen'sapartment duringwhichhe was

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 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,
MichaelMeyerconsidersIbsen'srefusal"cowardly and hypocrit-
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,be-
ingforced,in orderto getherchildrenback,to livewitha man
whohad had herlockedup inan asylum,sheenjoyeda longand
productive careeras a journalist;herbookswereissuedinmany
editionsand translatedintoforeignlanguages,and she was es-
peciallyhonoredin Denmarkforherwriting on theSchleswig-
Holsteinquestion.I wouldnotdescribeherlifeas a "protracted
tragedy."In anycase, thereis no reasonto doubtthatshe gave
a trueaccountof heremotionalinterview withIbsen. The fact
is thatIbsenwasveryattachedto his"skylark,"as he calledher,
and uncommonly affectionatewithher;he had beengreatly dis-
tressedby herhusband'streatment of her,had writtento her
warmlyto tellherso and to giveheradvice,and, whenhe heard
ofherincarceration, had writtento hispublisheraskingfornews
of her(Kinck 506-08). It seemsprobablethatIbsen wouldbe
upsetbyLaura Kieler'stearsand entreaties.His relationswith
younger women,moreover, weremarkedbypassionately feltsen-
timent;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-
WorksCited
Adams,R. M. "The Fifty-First Anniversary."Hudson Review
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'Ib-
sen." 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:ModernLibrary-
Random,n.d.
Feldman,Saul D. Escape from the Doll House. New York:
McGraw,1974.
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
39
ored refusalto commentpubliclyon his works.At theend of
theirtalk,whenLauraKielersawhe was notyielding, shebegged
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!"
(Kinck531;mytrans.).Yes,Ibsencould havewritten to a news-
paperto saythatNora Helmer'soriginalhad actedhonorably,
and perhapshe shouldhave,buthe could notbringhimselfto
do so, not evenforLaura Kieler.
8 Nora appearsin embryo as Selma Brattsbergin TheLeague
of Youth,written in 1869,tenyearsbeforeA Doll House. When
Selma respondsto herhusband'sannouncementof his finan-
cial ruin,bothherargument and hermetaphor areNora's:"How
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 likedtakingcreditforgivingIb-
sen 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.).
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 Cen-
turiesbyand about Women.New York:Bobbs, 1974.
Haugen, Einar. Ibsen's Drama: Author to Audience. Min-
neapolis: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 Ver-
ker.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.Lon-
don: 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
40 The Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
and Ibsen
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.
EightPlays. By HenrikIbsen.
Le Gallienne,Eva. Introduction.
Trans. Eva Le Gallienne. New York: Modern Library-
Random, 1981.xii-xxxiii.
Marholm,Laura. "Die Frau in derskandinavischen Dichtung:
Der Noratypus." FreieBuhnefurmodernesLeben 1 (1890):
168-71.
Marker,Frederick,and Lisa-Lone Marker."The FirstNora:
Noteson theWorldPremiereofA Doll's House." Ibsenar-
boken 11(1970-71): 84-100.
McCarthy,Mary."The Willand Testament of Ibsen." Partisan
Review23 (1956): 74-80.
McFarlane,JamesWalter."A Doll's House: Commentary." The
OxfordIbsen. Vol.5. Ed. McFarlane.London:OxfordUP,
1961.435-64. 8 vols. 1960-77.
Meyer,Annie. "A Prophetof theNew Womanhood."Lippin-
cott'sMonthlyMagazine 54 (1894): 375-80.
Meyer,Michael. Ibsen. GardenCity:Doubleday,1971.
Nazimova,Alla. "Ibsen'sWomen."Independent (1907):909-14.
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 nachsei-
nensechsFamiliendramen.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:TheEssentialHistoricalWrit-
ings.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 theThe-
atre.Ed. ErrolDurbach. New York:New YorkUP, 1980.
118-30.
Strindberg, August.Author'sForeword. Miss Julie.Six Playsof
Strindberg. Trans.ElizabethSprigge.GardenCity:Double-
day,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: ZurFeierihreralljahrlichenMai-Festspieleheraus-
gegebenvonderIbsenvereinigung zu Dusseldorf1909.Ber-
lin: 1909. 13-19.
Zucker,A. E. Ibsen theMasterBuilder.New York:Holt, 1929.

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:13:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions