Ibsen & Strindberg Essay

8/12/2019 Ibsen & Strindberg Essay

1/16

Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 1

Chris TesterTutor: David ThomasApproaches to Modernism IIModule: Ibsen & Strindberg

Compare and contrast views of the family and family relationships shown in theplays of Ibsen and Strindberg, commenting on the relative importance in eachcase of social and psychological pressures, as well as physical environment, andshowing how these are expressed in theatrical terms.

This essay will be focusing on three texts written over a three year period: Henrik

Ibsens Hedda Gabler (1890) and August Stri ndbergs The Father (1887) and Miss

Julie (1888) 1. In approaching this topic, I have decided it best to confine my study to

these three plays rather than attempt an overview of either playwrights canon. I

intend to focus on the relevance of the father in these plays, specifically analysing

how the role of fatherhood is explored. Furthermore, instead of trying to take into

account every possible reference to family, I will be limiting my focus to what I

regard as the three central family relationships in these plays: Miss Julie and her

father; Hedda and General Gabler; and finally, the Captain and his daughter Bertha.

Though other characters will obviously be relevant in this study, it is the dramaticsignificance of these three relationships that I will be studying closely.

Both playwrights present families as institutions prone to major tensions. While

Strindberg chooses to place family firmly in the context of an instinctive

psychological war between the sexes where the protagonists are rendered almost

helpless, Ibsen stresses how the accumulation of psychological, social and

environmental factors all contribute but not necessarily determine the outcome of the play . Strindbergs characters seem trapped in a natural pattern of motivations from

which they cannot extricate themselves, and the audience 2 are made aware that the

characters onstage are in some sense archetypes, illustrating a central point about

lifes absurd struggle. By contrast, Ibsens work is deliberately produced to

1 The texts used in this essay, to which all subsequent page references correspond to, are: HeddaGabler, Ibsen: Hedda Gabler and Other Plays. trans. Una Ellis-Fermor (Penguin: London 1983). Miss

Julie and The Father , Strindberg: Plays One. trans. Michael Meyer (Methuen: London 1982).2

I have decided against any attempts to make distinction between modern audiences and those theatreaudiences Ibsen and Strindberg were writing for at the turn of the century, as I feel this issue isirrelevant to the aims of this essay.


2/16


emphasise that the circumstances portrayed, though largely a product of universally

recognisable factors, is still an individual case. Through its presentation, an audience

can possibly identify the factors prevalent in the situation, and so learn what

circumstances they must strive to avoid developing in their own lives.

Ibsens Hedda Gabler and Strindbergs Miss Julie are named after the central female

characters of their respective plays. Importantly, both are daughters of fathers who,

although absent from the stage, still manage to exert an influence over their children.

There are a striking number of similarities in these two plays. Both Hedda and Miss

Julie are daughters of families belonging to branches of the upper-class aristocracy.

Moreover, t his fact is of pronounced social significance in each womans case.

Hedda, having recently married Jorgen Tesman, is still referred to as General

Gablers daughter by her husband s aunt. That Miss Tesman doesnt naturally refer

to Hedda either by her first name or by Jorgens surname hints at the close association

of father and daughter. Ibsen stressed Hedda, is to be regarded rather as her fathers

daughter than as her husband s wife 3. The Generals daughter belongs to a different

class, one associated with rank, and which still retains a sense of formality. Hence,

Miss Tessman confides to Jorgen how she bought her new hat especially so that

Hedda shant be ashamed of me if we go out together 4. Jorgen, rather than

admonishing her for her servility, proceeds to congratulate his aunt on taking this

measure; there exists a pronounced, mutually acknowledged class divide. Miss Julie

is also defined by her fathers rank; the subject provides the main source of comment

when Jean observes how she (a member of the aristocratic family of the household) is

happy to dance with her social inferiors: I just popped into the barn to watch the

dancing, and who do I see but Mi ss Julie leading the dance with the gamekeeper 5. It

is thus possible to draw another parallel in observing that each woman, a member of a

distinctly upper-class family, is presented to us in the context of mixing with her (and

her familys) social inferiors, and that in both cases this provokes immediate comment

by others. When Hedda finally arrives onstage, she still regards herself as belonging

to a different class from the Tesmans . Her calculated dismissal of Miss Tesmans

3 The Correspondence of Henrik Ibsen, trans & ed. by Mary Morison, 435, quoted from Ibsen: ACollection Of Critical Essays , 1324

Ellis-Fermor trans, 267.5 Ellis-Fermor trans, 107


3/16


best hat, a theatrical symbol of the a unts valiant attempt to raise herself to so mething

approaching the Gablers level, demonstrates how the new daughter-in-law carries

with her an air of social superiority derived from her aristocratic upbringing. Miss

Julie, by contrast, toys with the precepts of class difference much more openly,

encouraged as she is to fraternise with the servants, thanks to the drinking, dancing,

and numerous other factors 6. She too is conscious of the social divide between herself

and the servants with whom she flirts. Her ordering around of Jean plays upon her

position as la dy of the house; she is his lordships daughter, and Jean is ever wary

of the power the upper-class aristocrat has over him, represented by her fathers boots.

Yet the nature of her requests betrays their self-consciously un-aristocratic origin (like

her dancing and drinking with servants). There is a playfulness in her actions which

highlights Miss Julies public revelry in her social superiority.

There is also a fundamental difference between the two daughters in that while Hedda

is a lady always mindful of maintaining her association with the upper class, there is a

part of Miss Julie that certainly isnt , as is evident at the beginning of the play. Both

wome ns motivations partl y extend from the influences their fathers have had over

them. In Hedda s case, the audience are aware that most of her actions are motivated

specifically by her objective of maintaining a place in Norways aristocratic circle.

With the portrait of General Gabler already installed in her new house, one gets the

impression of Hedda being conscious of her fathers gaze, even from the grave.

When in Act Two, Hedda recollects her time with Lvborg always being subject to

the watchful eyes of her father, Ibsen provides an insight into the nature of the Gabler

father- daughter relationship. Heddas upbringing has rendered her highly conscious

of social appearances, to the extent where they have a primary importance. It is

revealed that this pronounced psychological fear of social shame, drummed into her

since childhood by the General, was probably the main factor in her not forming a

relationship with Lvborg in the first place when given the opportunity. It is for the

same reason that despite Hedda finding herself trapped in a marriage to a man she can

hardly stand, she stops short of ever embarking on a physical affair with either Brack

or Lvborg, wary of the potential risk:

6 Strindberg, Prefa ce to Miss Julie , Strindberg: Plays One, 93. Strindberg continually stressed themultiplicity of factors present in the play.


4/16


Brack: one jumps out and walks about a little bit, Madam Hedda.Hedda: I never jump out.Brack: Dont you really. Hedda: No. Because there is always someone at hand who Brack: (laughing) Who looks when you leap, you mean?

Hedda: Precisely.Brack: Oh come, you know!Hedda: (with a gesture of disagreement) I dont care for that. 7

Thus Heddas thought processes can be largely attributed to her father, demonstrated

onstage by her increasing retreat into a private backstage sanctum full of objects from

her home: the pistols, her fathe rs portrait and piano. Ibsens keen use of stagecraft

chooses this careful use of the stage, along with Heddas passing comments and

conduct with other characters, as alternative forms of expression to explicitly

revealing dialogue or monologue.

Whereas in Hedda Gabler , aristocratic standards of the father are taken over by the

daughter as an act of paternal duty, Miss Julie expresses a resentment of the social

expectations foisted upon her by her position as her fathers daughter. Unlike General

Gablers child, Miss Julie exhibits a desire to descend from the pedestal shes been

brought up on. Dramatically this has already been demonstrated by her willingness to

talk, dance and flirt with Jean, her social inferior. The intoxication of the wine, the

celebrations and the circumstances, also play their parts in formulating the scenario

presented to us. The crucial factor in Strindbergs play, as mentioned in his preface 8,

is the sheer multiplicity of factors, and her upbringing by an aristocratic father

concerned with honour and reputation is certainly one of them. Significantly,

Strindbergs use of the monologue in his play ( again justified in his preface and here

partly attributed in Miss Julies case to the alcohol she ha s consumed), allows his

character to vocalise her feelings openly to the audience:

Miss Julie: Ive climbed to the top of the pillar, and am sitting there, and I can seeno way to descend. When I look down, I become dizzy, but I mustcome down but I havent the courage to jump. I cant stay up there,

7 Ellis-Fermor trans, 3018 Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie , 93.


5/16


and I long to fall, but I dont fall. And yet I know I shall find no peacetill I come down, no rest till I come down, down to the ground. 9

Analysing Heddas position in the Tesmans household, it is striking how much of her

dissatisfaction can be attributed to the legacy of he r fathers upbringing in alignment

with a patriarchal structure. Her desire for control over social situations (just like her

fathers over her during childhood) is physically demonstrated in the first three acts of

the play by the way she moves characters around the stage: it is she who directs Brack

and Tesman into the inner room so that private conversations can be conducted with

Thea and Lvborg; it is she who controls who stays and who goes to the party

(specifically Lvborg). This control over others is mirrored in Miss Julies early

instruction of Jean. But Heddas sheltered upbringing as a female aristocrat leaves

her lacking the means of supporting herself. Having been raised in her fathers hous e,

she would find it psychologically inconceivable to take the step down in society (and

necessary change in her accustomed physical environment) which a highly reduced

income would necessitate. As a result she is willing to marry a man who might

provide the required income, even though it is a union which leaves her bored and

frustrated. She has become dependent on a man she detests, one who, with his

slippers and frequent visits to his aunts, is a polar opposite to her father . Heddasdependent status in a patriarchal society, when combined with the psychological

legacy of her upbringing, has rendered her almost helpless in determining her own

fate. An upper-class female is not expected to possess the skills to support herself,

and her childhood has made her largely dependent on men (to exist). She has been

thrust into a Catch-22 situation, with nominal control over her own future.

Heddas subsequent actions are discernibly derived from such factors. Apparentlyunable to control her own future, she is presented with the next best alternative in

Thea s example : one can attempt to have an influence over another person s destiny.

In her child, the manuscript she worked on with Lvborg, Thea has exhibited a

potency much envied by Hedda; this is theatrically symbolised by her hair, which

Hedda constantly fondles with envy. Unable to dictate her own situation, Hedda is

her fathers daughter in so much as she too desires an active role, to be of importance,

to play General; she has fallen in love with the idea of masculine authority and

9 Meyer trans, 116


6/16


action. As Caroline Mayerson suggests, her subsequent attempts at shaping

Lvborg s destiny into something romantic prove the symptom of this:

It is this tradition to which the pistols and Hedda (in her own mind) belong,

and it is, after all, the General only as glimpsed through his daughters

ambitions and conceptions of worth that is of real importance in the play.

These conceptions, as embodied in Heddas romantic ideal of manhood, may

be synthesised from the action and the dialogue. The aristocrat possesses

courage and self-control. He expresses himself through direct and

independent action but the recklessness is tempered by a disciplined will, by

means of which he beautifully orders both his own actions and those of

others on whom his power is imposed. He shoots straight to defend his life

or his honour, and to maintain his authority. 10

This desire is expressed in her handling of her fathers pistols. The pistols have an

immediate association with individual power and action, the ability to dictate and

control situations. Heddas random firing of them at the beginning of Act Two

illustrates that by this stage, she isnt too concerned what shape this power takes (ie.

whether it involves directly her own fate or someone elses), it is the principle of

having a participating role that is the issue. The pistols are phallic symbols, signifiers

of power in a patriarchal environment, which she is denied in her role as an upper-

class, female housewife in the public eye. Thanks largely to her fathers upbringing

and the lack of a mother figure, Hedda is more attracted by the masculine concepts

existing in society, rather than by the traditional female roles of wife and mother.

Miss Julies situation is also bound up in the tensions between social and

psychological factors originating from her family. However (in contrast to Ibsen),

Strindberg chooses to place this in a specific context relating to the archetypal

struggle between the sexes. Miss Julie is torn between her simultaneous hatred and

desire for men, as well as her continual sense of honour and later consciousness of her

fallen state. Her relationship with Jean, once consummated, leaves her desperately

10 Mayerson, p. 136


7/16


trying to rationalise the act itself by explaining it as love 11 . Yet Jean points out this

is just a desperate attempt to rationalise a product of circumstances, and the blow

delivered to the inbuilt sense of honour derived from her father 12, provokes a violent

reaction. The conflict resident within the character is explicitly framed in terms of the

mother and fathers influences in her childhood. The battle between male and female,

the continual struggle of which Strindberg was ever conscious, provides the means of

expressing the conflicting elements of her personality, to the extent where the

individual is almost lost in the tide:

Miss Julie: Who is to blame for what has happened my father, my mother,myself? Myself? I have no self. I havent a thought I didnt get from

my father, not an emotion I didnt get from my mother13

Strindbergs dramatic use of the monologue allows Miss Julie to vividly recollect the

immediate history of her family: her mothers vehement rejection of patriarchal

authority which led in turn to her fathers social exclusion and the attempted reversal

of conventional sex roles; how this finally led to her fathers protestation, and how the

two subsequently waged war on each other until her mothers death. Miss Julie is the

product of such a marriage: a confused creature constructed from a brutal

amalgamation of her mother s instincts and fathers social mores. Thus, she possesses

not only a human desire for relationships but also a deep-rooted hatred of men 14, a

desire to break free from the shackles of her role in society, yet also a keen sense of

honour that proves her bane after her fall with Jean 15. It is the clash of what

Strindberg referred to as t he passionate character of her mother and the upbringing

misguidedly inflicted on her by her father 16. The environmental factors that

Strindberg depicts onstage, combined with this chaotic internal chemistry, all

contribute to the circumstances of the play. The impossibility of reconciling them

leads to Jean s proposition of suicide as a form of escape.

11 I made Miss Julie imagine herself to be in love so as to excuse her action and escape her feeling ofguilt, Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie , p.98.12 an example ofthe inherent sense of honour that also leads Miss Julie into ordering the destruction ofher dog Diana after discovering it has been impregnated by a mongrel (in an obvious foreshadowing ofher own situation)13 Meyer trans, 14414

Meyer trans, 131 and 13915 the Old Warrior nobility psychology, Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie , p. 93.16 Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie , p. 93.


8/16


Hence, both daughters suicides can be partly attributed to their familys influence.

As Miss Julie ultimately isnt permitted to excuse her violation of honour as love, so

the failure of Heddas r omantic visions (first motivated by the prospect of finally

having a role in another person s destiny), leads to her death. When Miss Julie leaves

the stage for the final time, Strindberg has made sure that we are explicitly aware of

all the factors that have played their part. In her own confined state, Hedda perceives

the only way of having a role of importance can be through delivering Lvborg to

himself . His subsequent failure to control himself at Bracks party and return with

vineleaves in his h air, followed by his ignoble death (when she had provided him

with the means of a glorious exit ), denies Hedda any chance of fulfilling her longing

for significance. For her, a future in the Tesman household is psychologically

impossible: Thea and Jorgen have moved out of her sphere of influence, and the focus

on Lvborg s work seems to re -emphasise she wont have any significant role to play

in future affairs. Married to a man to whom she doesnt relate , pregnant with a child

she doesnt want, with a future as a housewife in a house isolated from the city (the

ultimate form of domesticity that so revolted her as illustrated by her reaction to

Jorgens slippers), Heddas life becomes the antithesis to her fathers role, and

complete anathema to General Gablers daughter . Additionally, Brack occupies a

position of power she simply cannot bear; continually entering as he has done from

the back door, his presence represents potential social scandal. Hedda has not been

raised to be psychologically content with such an existence. Ibsen presents a

catalogue of social and psychological factors that all contribute towards Heddas

death.

But the endings of the two plays differentiate in tone, and this illustrates Ibsen and

Strindbergs fundamentally different perspectives. In Miss Julie, the final feeling is of

futility 17. Neither Jean nor Miss Julie can be held completely responsible, and so

there is an air of helplessness over proceeding. Like an animal, Miss Julie has found

herself the victim of her own human existence; the battle of the sexes, both those

17 In his preface to the play, Strindberg seemed to suggests otherwise, explaining that when we have become as strong as the French revolutionaries it will do us good to see the forest cleared of old, rottingtrees that have stood too long in the way of others with equal right to a time in the sun as much goodas watching the death of someone incurably ill. However, I am i nclined to sympathise with Martin

Lamms observation that our resp onse to the ending of the play is less joyous because Strindberg, his professed objectivity notwithstanding, has conceived of Miss Julies destiny tragically. She is therefined aristocrat who succumbs in the struggle with the coarse proletarian (Lamm, 115)


9/16


enacted onstage between her and Jean, but especially between her parents, have

helped render her almost helpless, and the tragic atmosphere that pervades the close of

the play is obvious. Family for Strindberg, with its inherent conflict between male

and female, is yet another factor to be counted among the multiplicity of motives

cited in his Preface 18.

In Hedda Gabler , Ibsen denies his protagonist absolute tragic status by allowing

Tesman and Brack to have the final word:

Tesman: (shrieking to Brack) Shot herself! Shot herself in the temple! Thinkof it!

Brack: (half-collapsed in the easy-chair) . But, merciful God! People dont dosuch things! 19

Brack repeats Heddas oft repeated man tra concerning social propriety, and the effect

is to render the closing moment almost comic. Hedda has finally taken her destiny

into her own hands. Her use of the Generals pistol symbolically reaffirms that it is

an act born out of psychological necessity, a psychology stemming from her father s

influence (not unlike Strindbergs old warrior nobility) . But the action continues

after Heddas death ; life goes on, and choosing simply not to participate isnt a

constructive solution. Fundamentally, while Strindbergs characters are presented as

beings caught in archetypal patterns of conflict, a Darwinian battle to determine the

stronger from which it is impossible to escape, Ibsen insists that the individual is

capable of breaking the cycle. Though Ibsen never suggests such an act would be

easy, our final image of Heddas death is one deliberately tinged with absurdity to

remind the audience that what has been enacted onstage isnt simply the tragedy of

the human condition. Heddas life has been largely shaped by the psychological and

social concerns created by her upbringing as General Gablers daughter; but her death

isnt necessary in the same way Miss Julie s appears to be. In the pregnancy she so

despises, Ibsen may even have provided a tangible opportunity for Hedda to change

things in the future through the upbringing of her child. Mayerson observes that, in

emotionally repudiating her unborn child, Hedda rejects what Ibsen considered

18 Meyer trans, 9419 Ellis-Fermor trans, 364


10/16


womans opportunity to advance the march of progress 20 (p. 132). The play has a

number of points to make about womens existence in the Norwegian society of the

time, but in the context of this question, it ultimately suggests that genealogies, the

psychological and social legacies of ones family, arent necessarily insurmountable

obstacles for individuals.

Whereas Hedda Gabler and Miss Julie explore the effects a father never seen has on

his child, Strindbergs The Father is designed to provide an insight into a fathers

battle for control over his family. Despite offering a different characters point of

view, several of the dramatic techniques resident in Miss Julie are exhibited. Even

more importantly, Strindberg again insists on placing the family of the play in the

context of a Darwinian battle of the strongest. It is natural for us to expect similarities

between The Father and Miss Julie due to the close proximity of their writing, but the

points made about Str indbergs later work help provide an additional insight into the

playwrights main concerns. In The Father , Strindberg raises a further issue

concerning family: can any father know (in a time before genetic testing) if his child

is truly his? Furthermore, how does the subsequent uncertainty effect the position and

authority of a father in a patriarchal household? Perhaps the most important fact to

consider is that in this play, Strindberg is consciously focused on an archetypal family

role: the play is called The Father not Captain Adolf after all. The direct quotations

of Shakespeare the literary references from numerous sources regarding a father s

dilemma , and the echoing of the fathers situation in both his servants 21as well as the

Past ors own experiences (he confides Do you think I havent been all through

this? 22), are all designed to emphasise that the circumstances presented, in the

playwrights opinion, are universal; the sphere of reference is ever outward.

To investigate this subject, Strindberg provides the character of the Captain, who from

his first entrance in undress uniform, riding boots and spurs, appears the physical

embodiment of male capability. He is also a character created with the ability to

analyse his own fluctuating position in the household, throughout the narrative. In

20 Cf. Ibsens speech to the Norwegian Womens Rights League (1898): It is women who are to solvethe social problems. As mothers they are to do it. And only as such can they do it. Speeches and

New Letters of Henrik Ibsen, trans. by Arne Kildal, 66, quoted in Mayerson, 132.21 Meyer trans, can be found on pages 59, 68 and 28 respectively22 Meyer trans, 32


11/16


granting the main character this capacity to recognise his own situation and even

occasionally be amused by it, the character is intended to tread the border between

serious and comic. Strindberg himself maintained:

I suggest, though I dont usually interfere in these matters, that the Captain begiven to an actor of normally healthy temper who, conscious of his superiority,goes loftily and cynically, almost joyfully, to meet his fate, wrapping himselfin death as in a spiders web which he is impotent to tear asunder. A deceivedhusband is a comic figure in the eyes of the world, and especially a theatreaudience. He must show that he is aware of this, and that he too would laughif only the man in question were someone other than himself. That is what ismodern about my tragedy no screams, no preachings! Subtle, calm,resigned. 23

The audience are provided with a rare view of the main protagonists psychology at

work, just as if he were a Hamlet, yet in a play generally regarded as one of the

authors most naturalistic 24. Just as in Miss Julie , Strindberg takes care to realistically

integrate the theatrical technique of the monologue to make explicit how the situation

is having an effect on his characters. The Captain is thus capable of giving the

audience an analysis of his emotions throughout the play, in a way not entirely

dissimilar to Miss Julie.

The background to the action of the play itself is a fight for supremacy between

patriarchy and matriarchy in a household 25; a source of continual tension that is

brought to a climax through the debate over a daughter s future . Husband and wife

fundamentally disagree about what is best for their child, but the conflict seems to be

regarded purely in terms of principle. Any concern for the childs welfare is

frequently pretence. The Captains lucid grasp of his own motivations provides himwith the means of expressing what his own daughter actually signifies for him: I do

not believe in resurrection, and to me this child was my life hereafter. She was my

idea of immortality perhaps the only one that has any roots in reality. Take her

23 Meyer trans, Strindberg, quoted in Meyer trans, Introduction to The Father , Strindberg: Plays One.24 the masterpiece of naturalistic drama - La mm, Miss Julie. Strindberg: Collection of CriticalEssays, 105.25 The battle for power in the marital relationship of the Captain and Laura is partly represented onstage

by the possession of the secretaire, from where the former literally holds the purse-strings over the

latter in the first act. Strindbergs positioning of Laura at the secretaire in the third act, rifling throughits contents, is a deliberate theatrical technique that helps emphasise to the audience how she hasgradually usurped her hus bands control.


12/16


away and you cut short my life 26. To Laura, the matter is all to do with the current

balance of power; her brother (the Pastor) reflects, it wasnt the thing she wanted,

simply the fact of having her will 27. Bertha herself even confides that She doesnt

pay any attention to me 28, whereas the Captain at least consults his daughter s

opinion (though importantly, after he has already made up his mind). Bertha herself

is rarely on stage 29, and furthermore, she never objects to her fathers plans about her

future:

Father: Would you like to go and live in town, and learn something useful?Bertha: Oh, Id so love to live in town and get away from here anywhere! As

long as I can see you sometimes often! In here everythings sogloomy, so horrible, like a winter night. 30

What the figure of the daughter does do is draw attention to the environment of the

family house, specifically the gloomy atmosphere pervading it. The home is not the

warm, comforting place it should be, but another battlefield. Furthermore, the child

appears little more than a possession to be fought over, one which (caught between

the conflicting wills of her parents), struggles to have a will of her own 31. Though the

story of the daughter is largely subordinate to the main marital conflict, what proves

remarkable is the recurrence of this topic via the Captain, in his almost passing

observation that Mother and father had me against their will, and so I was born

without a will 32. Individually this passage could be construed as insignificant, but

the theme of dislocation from one s parents is touched on again in Act T hree: My

mother was my enemy. She didnt want to bring me into the world because my birth

would cause her pain. She robbed my first embryo of its nourishment, so I was born

half-cri ppled 33. The Captain refers to his mother always in the context of one of the

several wome n he has been at war with, and so Strindbergs utilisation of mother -son,

father-daughter relationships is specifically intended to emphasise their context within

the continual battle of the sexes. This heavily echoes extracts from the later play Miss

26 Meyer trans, 5827 Meyer trans, 3128 Meyer trans, 4429 Bertha is present in only three of the plays twenty-three scenes30 Meyer trans, 4331

Meyer trans, 7132 Meyer trans, 6033 Meyer trans, 74


13/16


Julie , specifically the main characters earlier cited reflection: Who is to blame?

Myself? I have no self! I havent a thought I didnt get from my father, not an

emotion I didnt get from my mother 34. In the closing stages of Miss Julie , it is

her pet finch that was the only living thing that loves me 35, any reference to her

father being conspicuous by its absence. As Raymond Williams observed, the child

doesnt even have to be active. In a passive state, it is still a weapon and a prize in

the par ents continuing struggle, itself unwanted continually unwanted, since there

is no final place for it where it was born, and yet the loss of this place is an absolute

exposure 36. Once again, Strindberg is shown to provide an explicit depiction of the

psychological pressures under which his characters operate.

In the final act, the Captain reflects on how his marriage was once happy, in a time

where the relationship was primarily maternal 37. Only when the Captain assumed his

position as patriarchal head of the family through his new role as father, did the

conflict start: the arrival of Bertha provided something to lay claim to. This scenario

emphasises Strindbergs fundamental point of view: that relationships between sexes

are essentially competitive. When the Captain was Lauras little boy under her

control , they could maintain a state of armistice 38; once this equilibrium dissolved,

her natural impulse was to regain authority by any means. Thus, Strindberg suggests,

the fundamental structure of families will always lead to a struggle for dominance. In

Laura s case, this involved the systematic emasculation of her husband. She leaves

all patriarchal authority redundant (as Strindberg termed it, impotent 39). The

Captains scientific reputation and honour have been gradually eroded, and the crucial

blow is struck through the obliteration of the primary objective of patriarchy: the

continuation of the fathers line. Having sacrificed his life and honour in the belief

that through his child a form of immortality was obtainable, the uncertainty

concerning Berthas origins illustrates how the whole patriarchal construction of

fatherhood can be quickly rendered defunct. Berthas unwillingn ess to side

34 Meyer trans, 14435 Meyer trans, 13836 Raymond Williams, Private Tragedy: Strindberg , Strindberg: A Collection of Critical Essays, p. 4937 Meyer trans, 6038

vocabulary derived from warfare permeates the play, eg. The Captains military secret ( 35) and later proposal of an armistice ( 57)39 Strindberg, quoted in Meyer trans, 17.


14/16


exclusively with the Captain against her mother destroys any remaining hopes of

victory in the battle with his wife:

Captain: You must only love me! You must only have one soul, or you willnever find peace, nor shall I. You must have only one thought, andyou shall have only one will, mine.

Bertha: I dont want that! I want to be myself! Captain: I wont let you do that! You see, Im a cannibal, and I want to eat you.

Your mother wanted to eat me, b ut she couldnt. I am Saturn, who atehis children because it had been prophesied that otherwise they wouldeat him. To eat or be eaten! That is the question. 40

The conscious echoing of Hamlets To be or not to be is intended to resonate with atheatre audience, once again emphasising the universality of the struggle 41. The

childs position is that of a pawn in a heightened game of power between its parents.

The Captain is left unable to lift a finger in response: when he reaches for his

revolver, a symbol of masculine phallic authority presiding over the household from

its mounting on the wall, Laura has symbolically robbed it of its potency by taking its

ammunition. The stage-image constructed for the close of the play demonstrates how

the matriarchys final victory (attributed in part to womens own security regarding

the origin of their children) has led to the father figure being reduced to a state of

second childhood. The defining role of patriarchal authority in the family, the

pos ition of father, has been rendered literally impotent by the removal of the

daughter as a route to immortality; by extension, the logic that first legitimised the

sex-conflict instigated through the undertaking of the role of father has collapsed.

This alternative perspective is what differentiates the play. Whereas Hedda Gabler

and Miss Julie touch on the influence of father on the daughter, The Father examines

the function children have within the concept of fatherhood, and how they are

inevitably drawn into the archetypal struggle of which we are all part. Ibsen and

Strindberg had fundamentally different opinions, but the re-emergence of topics

concerning the family and the role of the father proves they both felt compelled to

deal with them, and regard them as truly universal themes worth investigating

theatrically.

40

Meyer trans, 7141 One can only speculate as to whether Strindberg considered the tale of Hamlet as another Darwinian battle for survival .


15/16


Bibliography

Ellis-Fermor, Una, trans. Ibsen: Hedda Gabler and Other PlaysPenguin: London, 1983

Fjelde, Rolf, ed. Ibsen: A Collection of Critical EssaysPrentice-Hall International Inc: New JerseyMayerson, Caroline W. Thematic Symbols in Hedda Gabler 131 -138

Lucas, F.L. The Drama Of Ibsen & StrindbergCassell: London, 1962

McFarlane, James and Jens Arup trans. Henrik Ibsen: Four Major PlaysOxford University Press: Oxford, 1965

McFarlane, James ed. The Cambridge Companion to IbsenFinney, Gail. Ibsen and feminism 89 -105Garton, Janet. The middle plays 106 -125

Meyer, Michael, trans. Strindberg: Plays OneMethuen: London, 1982

Northam, John. Ibsen: A Critical StudyCambridge University Press: London, 1973

Reinert, Otto. Strindberg: A Collection Of Critical Essays Prentice-Hall International, Inc: London, 1971Williams, Raymond. Private Tragedy: Strindberg, 48 -56Lamm, M artin. Miss Julie, 105 -116Johnson, Walter. Strindberg and the Danse Macabre, 117 -124

Robinson, Michael. Strindberg and Genre Norvik Press: Norwich, 1991Trnqvist, Egil. Strindberg and Subjective Drama, 97 -107Kvam, Keva. Strindberg as an Innovator of Dramatic and Theatrical Form,

108-118

Thomas, David. Henrik Ibsen (Macmillan Modern Dramatists)Macmillan Press: London, 1983


16/16

Documents

Ibsen & Strindberg Essay