BY

STEVE COLLINS,

NOVEMBER 22, 1996

It is certain that Ibsen never claimed to be in favour of any particular group, feminist or otherwise. To quote Ibsen in his defence against being heralded a socialist:

This quotation then leaves us with the problem of what Ibsen's motives were for writing many of his more problematical plays - that is, those plays which provoked the most social discussion, but particularly A Doll's House. Did he write this play purely with aesthetic principles in mind? Put another way: did he simply want to write 'a good play'?

A Doll's House is claimed to be Ibsen's first attempt in Dramatic Realism. The little symbolism which there is in the play - and I intend to discuss if it can be interpreted such - comes right at the end of the play, with the stage direction: "the street door is slammed shut downstairs". This could be interpreted in the play (and has been in some productions) like a loud bang, almost like a gunshot. If we consider this gunshot symbolism with a quote from one of his critics:

This quote I believe is particularly relevant to the play, for Nora and Torvold's problem seems an unsolvable one, and Nora commits what is almost social suicide in order to make sense of her world which has failed to come-up with her miracle. It may also be used to show that perhaps Ibsen had more on his mind than aesthetics when he wrote this play, and maybe more than simple inequality of gender. By the end of the essay which follows I hope to have determined if this symbolism is relevent, why Ibsen chose to end the play in such an ambibuous way, and discuss if this play does or does not address (what was termed at the time) The Woman Question.

A Doll's House starts seemingly as far from realism as a play can get, with both Nora and Torvald being characterised almost stereotypically. Torvald plays the patriarchal male figure to Nora's little-girl wife, who, really requires the guidance of a wise adult man to help her through life's little problems - such as not frittering all her money away on chocolates and biscuits(!). However, Mrs Linde arrives and the phantom of literary stereotypes vanishes as Nora explains how she both works for profit under stealth, and fraudulently acquires a loan to save her husband's life. Nora is by no means the stereotypical stay-at-home housewife - at least, not to the audience she isn't any longer - only with her husband is the facade continued. It is interesting that Ibsen uses a single device (the fraudulent loan) to build both the plot and to emphasise Nora's and Torvald's relationship - Nora's past presence-of-mind in overcoming a financial difficulty feeds the immediate plot development, and also shows that the pair's relationship is a false mask based on unreality. What this unreality is in the relationship is supplied at the end of the play when Nora finally takes a stand against Torvald, and points out for everybody - but especially Torvald:

It is this, the main vein of the end of act three, which most critics seem to draw their conclusions that Ibsen was championing women when he wrote A Doll's House. But is this the entire case? I don't believe it is...

If A Doll's House was Ibsen's acclaimed first attempt at realism, I should now like to push that definition to being his first attempt at naturalism. There is so much other material in the play which tends to add little to its most visible theme - at worst totally confusing its more obvious meaning (the defence of women). This other material is subtle, being set in the past, and pertaining to people other than Nora - whom Ibsen seems to be championing by making the central character, ostensibly Ibsen's mouthpiece. It is Nora who borrows the money to give Torvald a life-saving holiday, but this was because he had been over-working to get money - which we have seen is required by his 'little spendthrift'. Torvald is thus shown not to be sole mover and shaker of his family's world, but is motivated by his own desire to keep up the pretence of their relationship. As Nora comments:

Is this 'life' and 'relationship' which Nora tries so hard to keep together the same one we know: a life of play-acting, a relationship of unreal personalities? Is this the same plastic relationship which she accuses Torvald of continuing to her detriment, in act three? Has Ibsen created a paradox here? Nora play-acts to boost Torvald's masculinity - how? By playing the little girl to please him! Torvald play-acts the patriarch by earning as much money as possible to please - who? His little spendthrift songbird or his patriarchal ego? Who initially sets-up this earner-spender understanding between them if, as Nora later testifies, they have never once talked seriously? This riddle throws into some obscurity the essential wronged-party of the play. And, I believe, adds a little to Ibsen's gender-neutral standpoint by, if nothing else, taking some heat away from Torvald.

I should further like to extend Torvald's defence by pointing-out the other mater of his personal(?) ambitions. He gives up a secure job with the Ministry, to become a self-employed lawyer who is particular about not taking on 'those kind of jobs'. Ultimately he acquires a job as Bank Manager - apparently giving up law (his fond profession?) to take on a secure position with lots of MONEY! Without being certain what Ibsen's motives are, it is difficult to know exactly what to make of this. The following quote may help:

is it a selfless desire to keep Nora 'singing' and 'spending' which drives him from job to job in an endless search for cash, or a selfish machismo ego trip to keep his little plaything an uncomplaining dependant? So far, I have not uncovered sufficient evidence to argue either way. All I have so far is a fairly sure hint that this couple's situation is not supported or maintained only from one side.

In the following analysis, a search for ultimate human responsibility regarding Nora and Torvald's situation may not seem important. Consider the most important past events leading to the last act's major showdown - first: Torvald's physical breakdown, (necessitating Nora's loan); second: the move to the bank, (giving him power over Krogstad); and finally Mrs Linde's need of a job - coupled with Nora's and Torvald's joint dislike of people who do 'those kind of jobs', and Krogstads unfortunate history which makes Torvald want to fire him - prompting Krogstad to ultimately reveal Nora's secret. Loosely examining the plot from this angle throws an almost Shakespearean or Sophoclean tragic shadow on the play. In fact, like a tragedy of necessity, it hardly seems relevant that Nora likes spending money or not - the marriage is doomed, and Nora's life lost (if only symbolically) from the very moment the vows are taken. Where I see the tragedy lying is that neither Nora nor Torvald can be directly blamed. They both behave in a programmed way, treating each other as they think the other wishes to be treated, neither essentially communicating with the other until forced by necessity, when events have run their course, to examine the wreckage verbally.

If Ibsen intended the play to be treated like some form of modern social tragedy, then it is unlikely he specifically meant to champion the cause of women, Nora's misfortune would be just another element of the tragedy. Though still justifying some social concern as the facts are arrayed, such a tragic plot would undermine any Woman Question.. However, I do not believe Ibsen intended it to have a tragic plot - or indeed any plot at all. As I pointed-out earlier, I believe Ibsen's attempt was to write a naturalistic play. Naturalism should contain much that is not particularly favourable to a rigid plot or structure - life is presented piecemeal on the stage, perhaps paradoxical, perhaps without meaning, perhaps unsanitary, but certainly without ultimate conclussions - "life simply goes on somehow". Such Naturalistic adoption would help to explain Ibsen's ambiguous end to the play, and support his statement that he did not champion the cause of women in his writing. To further show that such Naturalism seems intrinsic to Ibsen's style in general - manifested in A Doll's House (if in no other), I should like to include Robert Brustein claims that Ibsen was more than a social rebel, almost an anarchist:

This sounds uncannily like the description of Ibsen's paradox described earlier: 'a perpetual conflict of truths', but Nora and Torvald's personal truths conflict because they are based on non-reality. Is this non-reality - the misunderstanding of each other's needs - the ultimate truth Ibsen strives to show in the play? For such a paradox to stand-firm, traditional dramatic structure would be untenable. If the quote for Ibsen is basically true then - and I hope to show that it is - simple Realism would not be insufficient to avoid 'institutionalising his revolt'. True, there 'appears' a structure in A Doll's House, but I have shown how the apparent structure does not consistently hold together, tragic necessity overrides 'will'. No will - no option - no cure. However, this is a long way from being naturalistic, and far from proving or otherwise the question of Ibsen's championing women. In order to further the discussion then, I should like to investigate Torvald's ill-health:

It has never been questioned that without an expensive holiday to warmer climes, Torvald would die. This is a critical part of the 'plot', and so, perhaps, criticism is suspended in the natural way for plot acceptance. However, why should such a piece of critical news of this nature be kept from the patient? Why is only Nora made aware of it. What of Torvald's family: mother, father, etc? Why is only the wife - totally at the mercy of her husband's wishes: socially and financially under his interdiction - be told? If Ibsen was championing women's causes, if he was trying to highlight a wife's powerlessness in society, then she would be told in order to make this particular fact clear - to show that her only recourse was to break a 'silly' law - and this is how it appears on the surface. However, if we dig deeper, and ask some wild questions, what other motive appears?

This quote from Ibsen’s poetry ties-in nicely with the above quote - that of not institutionalising revolt. Bearing this in mind, should we ask some fundamental questions, perhaps unsavoury questions, questions in keeping with the mode of Naturalistic drama: what if an unscrupulous doctor wished to gain some power over the wife of a patient who was very ill, who knew the couple's difficult financial position, who knew the patient's attitude towards spending money 'frivolously', who knew the wife had no other person to turn to except a father on death's door, and who was a good friend of both patient and wife, and who was in love with that wife? This may be doing Dr Rank a great wrong, but why is he so friendly and considerate towards Nora - even Mrs Linde takes Nora's sexual innuendo about Rank particularly seriously, and she hardly knows him. Rank does give us a solid reason for his attentions by admitting his love for her, but is this maybe to shield his guilt from her of his attempted seduction? Such a thought is, I agree, totally ludicrous and obscene - but I feel it needs to be expressed. Rank never expounds what he knows of Krogstad's morals, or how he knows. It is mysterious why he wants nobody (especially Torvald) to visit his dying hours in hospital. Is it guilt of what he has forced them both into (although unintentionally), with his apparent resignation of death coming when it does, at the crux of events. Surely such an action on behalf of the Doctor would overshadow any other wrong-doing of Nora, Torvald, Krogstad, and even society itself. In fact it would torpedo the whole emphasis of the play! I cannot help but think this is surely an Ibsen-type Timebomb, and quite suited to Naturalistic Drama.

Ibsen seems to dilute his play so much, that I cannot neglect what I consider a particularly important tangent he includes. Torvald is to be the new manager of a bank - it cannot escape notice that such a position, plus all his previous employments, make him a part of the bourgeoisie. Nora has never worked (except stealthily), and has her own childhood nanny as a maid for her own children - this also makes her part of the bourgeoisie. Doctor Rank - ditto. Nora is forced by necessity (tragic and social) to acquire a loan from a loan-shark - not even petty bourgeoisie. The loan is for an exotic holiday to cure ill-health - privilege. Krogstad is bitter both for being cheated in love by money, and for being dogged by a rash financial mistake. Krogstad is not only further ruined by Torvald's inclemency, but is a victim of privilege when the friend of Torvald's wife gets his job. To make matters worse, the friend is Krogstad's jilting old-flame, a worn-out, work-a-holic proletariat like himself. The play ends with Krogstad and Mrs Linde finding love and fulfilment, though not money - while Torvald and Nora find only disruption, separation and emotional/spiritual emptiness - though well off. Seen in yet another light, the play takes still another meaning, a socialist's paradise. In this version, Nora becomes a social parasite - money-mad, not caring about the financial well-being of others:

"Nora: Them? Who cares about them? They're strangers!"

and

Non socialists would see this as poetic justice on Krogstad, hung by his own petard! Still, Ibsen's quote about aligning with any established group should be remembered here. Which also applies to alignment with feminist groups, thus suggesting the truth of Ibsen's statement in this essay's title, that he did not write to champion women's causes (or any causes).

To summarise, I have to admit that I have not spent much time discussing what seemed to me the obvious interpretation of the play: that Nora is wronged by Torvald's, Society's, and her own father's patriarchal treatment of her (and thus women in general). I have taken it for granted that the question itself implies the accepted interpretation of the play, and consequently discussed the issues and events in the play which could give rise to alternative interpretations. It has thus come to light that the play is almost loaded with These. It is at this point that I may address the items cited in my introduction: namely, if Ibsen intended the final door-slam to be symbolic. It is with reticence that I do this, for symbolism is antagonistic to a Real or Natural view of the play, and I would be undermining my own argument. Never-the-less, I can only come to the one conclusion that this episode is indeed symbolic.

Consider, Nora's leaving the family home in such a fashion explodes every angle of approach to understanding the play.

First: the run-up to Nora's revolt forces one to expect a solid conclusion - either she fulfills her feared suicide if Torvald rejects her, or the miracle happens to reconcile them. Ibsen encourages audience expectation of traditional plot development by creating tension in the expected way by use of the letter. Nora's revolt thus slaps such optimism and pessimism in the face - the ending becomes ambiguous and on-going, without the expected solution.

Second: Torvald's response to both letters, and Nora's revolt forces the acknowledgement that Nora has been wronged, that she has been only Torvald's plaything, their relationship has been a sham, and that he and her father's enforced patriarchy has been to blame in enslaving her. But, as I have shown, that is not exactly the case. Nora has been as much involved in constructing the facade as Torvald (the father/daughter facade is also implied). As such, Nora's dramatic exit becomes an anti-climax - if she left because of Torvald's letter-reaction, she might have a point, but she bases it on a state of affairs she has equally conspired in.

Third: Ibsen's flirtation with dramatic tragedy is ruined by Nora's leaving as there is no final solution, no catharthis, only deliberation of what happens next.

Fourth: Marxist ideas of popular revolt appear to be sanctioned by Nora's leaving, a symbolic return to the fold of proletariat, battered but wiser. Such an interpretation could be substantiated by symbolism of the 'gun-shot' door representing the execution of the Bourguae status-quo. However, if Ibsen shows the status-quo only remains so by the active participation of its dependants, and that this participation is motivated only by the pursuit of personal gain (Nora's pre-disposition to acquiring money, money, and more money through Torvald's success), then such popular revolution is shown to be basically unsound and corrupt. The emancipating 'gun-shot' becomes a death-dealing explosion to Marxist ideals.

Fifth: Rank's possible seduction conspiracy, if substantiated, turns the play into a tragedy of conscience. It ceases to become a social investigation in favour of a personal experience on behalf of the Doctor as he witnesses the agonised suffering and decline of two loved friends, because of his own personal lust. In such a tragedy, the 'gun-shot' door represents both Rank's implied suicide, and the final-crux of his dilemma - the separation of Nora and Torvald.

Lastly: this one act of symbolism undermines any argument about whether the play is Realistic or Naturalistic - for neither should contain symbolism. This, I think, is Ibsen's last attack on conventionality - the final rebellion which prevents institutionalisation!

It is only left for me to say that, after all of the above, Ibsen was fully correct in his assertion that he did not write to champion women.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brustein R, The theatre of Revolt, Methuen, London, 1964

Stuart D, The Development of Dramatic Art, Dover Publication, New York, 1960

Bogard & Oliver (eds), Modern Drama, Oxford University Press, New York, 1968

Popkin H (ed), European Theories of the Drama, New York, 1977

Ibsen H, "A Dolls House" in Ibsen Plays: two, Methuen, London, 1980