Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-22T22:08:06.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Joan Templeton
Joan Templeton*
Affiliation:
Long Island University, Brooklyn, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of modern feminism's most crucial literary texts has incited a systematic backlash that would save its author from feminism, denying that mere gender can have a place in Ibsen's universal art or claiming that Nora Helmer is too inconsistent, frivolous, dishonest, abnormal, or unwomanly to be a feminist heroine. The argument that Nora represents not Woman but Everyman is a gender-based tautology in itself; applied to the play's thoroughgoing feminist text it becomes doubly nonsense. The confused notions that Nora's critics have about feminism and its relation to art lead them to uphold equally illogical positions, and their charges against Nora, which repeat those of her foil and husband, constitute both a serious misreading and, unintentionally, a kind of spurious deconstruction that denies the play's coherence and worth. Finally, research on Ibsen's life proves that, all claims to the contrary, his intentions in A Doll House were thoroughly feminist.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 28 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Cited

Adams, R. M. “The Fifty-First Anniversary.” Hudson Review 10 (1957): 415–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, William. Introduction. Ibsen, Works 7: 3–21.Google Scholar
Baruch, Elaine Hoffman. “Ibsen's Doll House: A Myth for Our Time.” Yale Review 69 (1979): 374–87.Google Scholar
Bennett, Louie. “Ibsen as a Pioneer of the Woman Movement.” Westminster Review 173 (1910): 278–85.Google Scholar
Brandes, Georg. Henrik Ibsen and Bjornstjerne Bjornson. Trans. Jesse Muir. Rev. William Archer. London: Heinemann, 1899.Google Scholar
Brustein, Robert. The Theatre of Revolt. New York: Little, 1962.Google Scholar
Canudo, Ricciotto. “La réprésentation féministe et sociale d'Ibsen.” Grande revue 38 (1906): 561–72.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, John. Ibsen: The Open Vision. London: Athlone, 1982.Google Scholar
Crawford, Oswald. “The Ibsen Question.” Fortnightly Review 55 (1891): 727–40.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Dietrich, R. F. “Nora's Change of Dress: Weigand Revisited.” Theatre Annual 36 (1981): 20–40.Google Scholar
Dowden, Edward. “Henrik Ibsen.” Ibsen, Works 3: 219–58.Google Scholar
Downs, Brian. A Study of Six Plays by Ibsen. 1959. New York: Octagon, 1978.Google Scholar
Ellis, Havelock. The New Spirit. New York: Modern Library-Random, n.d. Feldman, Saul D. Escape from the Doll House. New York: McGraw, 1974.Google Scholar
Fjelde, Rolf. Foreword. Ibsen: Four Major Plays. Trans. Fjelde. New York: Signet, 1965. ix–xxxv.Google Scholar
Fjelde, trans. Ibsen: The Complete Major Prose Plays. New York: NAL, 1978.Google Scholar
Freedman, Morris. The Moral Impulse: Modern Drama from Ibsen to the Present. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1967.Google Scholar
Gilman, Richard. The Making of Modern Drama. New York: Farrar, 1972.Google Scholar
Goulianos, Joan, ed. By a Woman Writ: Literature from Six Centuries by and about Women. New York: Bobbs, 1974.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. Ibsen's Drama: Author to Audience. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1979.Google Scholar
H⊘st, Else. “Nora.” Edda 46 (1946): 13–48.Google Scholar
Huneker, James. “Henrik Ibsen.” Ibsen, Works 13: 261–92.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Bergliot. The Three Ibsens. Trans. Schjelderup, Gerik. London: Hutchinson, 1951.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Henrik. Hundreårsutgave. Henrik Ibsens Samlede Verker. Ed. Bull, Francis, Koht, Halvdan, and Seip, Didrik Arup. Vol. 17. Oslo: Gyldendal, 1946. 21 vols. 1928–58.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Henrik. Ibsens Samlede Verker. Vol. 3. Oslo: Gyldendal, 1978. 3 vols.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Henrik. The League of Youth. The Oxford Ibsen. Vol. 4. Ed. James Walter McFarlane, and trans. and Orton, Graham. London: Oxford UP, 1963. 24–146. 8 vols. 1960–77.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Henrik. Letters and Speeches. Ed. and trans. Evert Sprinchorn. New York: Hill, 1964.Google Scholar
Ibsen, Henrik. The Works of Henrik Ibsen. Ed. and trans. William Archer. 13 vols. New York: Scribner's, 1917.Google Scholar
Johnston, Brian. The Ibsen Cycle. Boston: Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
Key, Ellen. “Ibsen et la femme.” Revue 82 (1909): 195–202.Google Scholar
Kinck, B. M. “Henrik Ibsen og Laura Kieler.” Edda 35 (1935): 498–543.Google Scholar
Koht, Halvdan. Life of Ibsen. Trans. Einar Haugen, and ed. and Santaniello, A. E. New York: Blom, 1971.Google Scholar
Le Gallienne, Eva. Introduction. Eight Plays. By Henrik Ibsen. Trans. Gallienne, Eva Le. New York: Modern Library–Random, 1981. xii–xxxiii.Google Scholar
Marholm, Laura. “Die Frau in der skandinavischen Dichtung: Der Noratypus.” Freie Bühne für modernes Leben 1 (1890): 168–71.Google Scholar
Marker, Frederick, and Marker, Lisa-Lone. “The First Nora: Notes on the World Premiere of A Doll's House.” Ibsenårboken 11 (1970–71): 84–100.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Mary. “The Will and Testament of Ibsen.” Partisan Review 23 (1956): 74–80.Google Scholar
McFarlane, James Walter. “A Doll's House: Commentary.” The Oxford Ibsen. Vol. 5. Ed. McFarlane. London: Oxford UP, 1961.435–64. 8 vols. 1960–77.Google Scholar
Meyer, Annie. “A Prophet of the New Womanhood.” Lippincott's Monthly Magazine 54 (1894): 375–80.Google Scholar
Meyer, Michael. Ibsen. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.Google Scholar
Nazimova, Alla. “Ibsen's Women.” Independent (1907): 909–14.Google Scholar
Pearce, Richard. “The Limits of Realism.” College English 31 (1970): 335–43.Google Scholar
Reinert, Otto. “Teaching A Doll House: An Outline.” Shafer 55–62.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Marvin. “Ibsen versus Ibsen: Or, Two Versions of A Doll House.” Modern Drama 12 (1969): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Alice, ed. The Feminist Papers: From Adams to De Beauvoir. New York: Columbia UP, 1973.Google Scholar
Salomé, Lou Andréas. Henrik Ibsens Frauengestalten nach seinen sechs Familiendramen. Berlin: Diederichs, 1892.Google Scholar
Sayers, Dorothy. Unpopular Opinions: Twenty-One Essays. New York: Harcourt, 1947.Google Scholar
Schlueter, June. “How to Get into A Doll House: Ibsen's Play as an Introduction to Drama.” Shafer 63–68.Google Scholar
Schneir, Miriam, ed. Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings. New York: Random, 1979.Google Scholar
Shafer, Yvonne, ed. Approaches to Teaching Ibsen's A Doll House. New York: MLA, 1985.Google Scholar
Shafer, Yvonne, ed. Introduction. Shafer 31–34.Google Scholar
Shaw, Bernard. The Quintessence of Ibsenism. 1891. New York: Hill, 1957.Google Scholar
Sprinchorn, Evert. “Ibsen and the Actors.” Ibsen and the Theatre. Ed. Durbach, Errol. New York: New York UP, 1980. 118–30.Google Scholar
Strindberg, August. Author's Foreword. Miss Julie. Six Plays of Strindberg. Trans. Sprigge, Elizabeth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1955. 61–73.Google Scholar
Valency, Maurice. The Flower and the Castle: An Introduction to Modern Drama. 1963. New York: Schocken, 1982.Google Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Modern Library-Random, 1931.Google Scholar
Weigand, Hermann. The Modern Ibsen: A Reconsideration. New York: Holt, 1925.Google Scholar
Woerner, Roman. “Ibsen und die Frauenfragen.” Einiges über Ibsen: Zur Feier ihrer alljährlichen Mai-Festspiele herausgegeben von der Ibsen vereinigung zu Düsseldorf 1909. Berlin: 1909. 13–19.Google Scholar
Zucker, A. E. Ibsen the Master Builder. New York: Holt, 1929.Google Scholar