Hammond Innes reviews

Hammond Innes (1913 to 1998) was a British thriller writer novelist who wrote over 30 novels. His protagonists tend to be ordinary men thrust into perilous situations, often in extreme locations or situations. In fact in many of his novels the exotic locations are as – if not more – important than the human protagonists. I’ve always admired the fact that he was a very organised writer, spending six months travelling to settings around the world, doing thorough location research, followed by six months of writing.

Best one?

When I read them, I thought The Wreck of the Mary Deare was the best one, but years later it’s the unforgiving frozen landscape of the Antarctic in The White South which has stayed with me.

Innes’ novels

1940 The Trojan Horse Barrister Andrew Kilmartin gets involved with an Austrian Jewish refugee engineer whose discovery of a new lightweight alloy which will make lighter, more powerful aircraft engines reveals an extensive and sinister Nazi network which reaches to the highest places in the land; features a nailbiting chase through the sewers of London and a last-minute battle on the Nazi ship.

1940 Wreckers Must Breathe Journalist Walter Craig stumbles across a secret Nazi submarine base built into a ruined tin mine on the Cornwall coast and, along with local miners and a lady journalist, fights his way out of captivity and defeats the Nazis.

1941 Attack Alarm Wartime thriller set during the Battle of Britain, drawing heavily on Hammond Innes’s own experience as an anti-aircraft gunner. Barry Hanson is a former journalist now serving on an RAF airfield gun crew in 1940 who comes to believe a network of Nazi fifth columnists is planning to sabotage the airfield ahead of a major German attack, but none of his superiors believe him.

—Second World War—

1946 Dead and Alive A short post-war thriller divided into two halves. It begins on the Cornish coast, where ex–Royal Navy officer David Cunningham, emotionally adrift after the war, helps salvage a stranded landing craft with fellow veteran McCrae. They refit it as a small commercial venture, planning to trade goods in post-war Italy. A newspaper article about their efforts brings a letter from a French woman asking them to find her missing daughter, Monique, who was sent to Italy during the war. When they sail to Naples they profit from selling goods but become entangled in local criminal networks after McCrae angers a powerful figure.

1947 The Killer Mine Army deserter Jim Pryce discovers dark family secrets at a ruined Cornish mine which is being used as a base by a father-and-son team of smugglers who blackmail him into doing some submarine rock blasting, with catastrophic results.

1947 The Lonely Skier Writer Neil Blair is hired to visit the Dolomite mountains in Italy, supposedly to write a script for film producer Derek Engles, in reality to tip him off when key players in a hunt for Nazi gold arrive at the ski hut in the mountains where – they all think – the missing treasure is buried.

1947 Maddon’s Rock Corporal Jim Vardin, convicted of mutiny at sea and imprisoned in Dartmoor, breaks out to clear his name and seek revenge on the captain and crew who pretended to sink their ship, the Trikkala, but in fact hid it in order to steal its cargo of silver bullion.

1948 The Blue Ice Mineralogist and industrialist Bill Gansert sails to Norway to discover the truth about the disappearance of George Farnell, a friend of his who knew something about the discovery of a rare metal ore – an investigation which revives complicated enmities forged in Norway’s war-time Nazi occupation.

1949 The White South Narrator Duncan Craig becomes mixed up in the disaster of the whaling ship Southern Star, witnessing at first hand the poisonous feuds and disagreements which lead a couple of its small whalecatcher boats to get caught in pack ice, fatally luring the vast factory ship to come to their rescue and also becoming trapped. It then has to evacuate over 400 men, women and children onto the pitiless Antarctic ice where Craig leads his strife-torn crew to safety.

1950 The Angry Mountain Engineering salesman Dick Farrell’s wartime experiences come back to haunt him as he is caught up in a melodramatic yarn about a Czech spy smuggling industrial secrets to the West, with various people from his past pursuing him across Italy towards Naples and Mount Vesuvius, which erupts to form the dramatic climax to the story.

1951 Air Bridge Bomber pilot fallen on hard times, Neil Fraser, gets mixed up with Bill Saeton and his obsession with building a new type of diesel aero-engine based on a prototype looted from wartime Germany. Saeton is helped by partner Tubby Carter, hindered by Tubby’s sex-mad wife Diana, and spied on by Else, the embittered daughter of the German who originated the designs. The story moves to Germany and the Berlin airlift where Saeton’s obsession crosses the line into betrayal and murder.

1952 Campbell’s Kingdom Bruce Campbell, given only months to live by his doctors, packs in his boring job in London and emigrates to Canada to fulfil the dream of his eccentric grandfather, to find oil in the barren patch of the Canadian Rockies known as ‘Campbell’s Kingdom’.

1954 The Strange Land Missionary Philip Latham is forced to conceal the identity of the man who replies to an advert to come and be doctor to a poor community in the south of Morocco. Instead of curing the sick, he finds himself caught up in a quest for an ancient silver mine, a quest which brings disaster to the impoverished community where it is set.

1956 The Wreck of the Mary Deare Yacht skipper John Sands stumbles across the wreck of the decrepit steamer Mary Deare and into the life of its haggard, obsessive captain, Patch, who is determined to clear his reputation by revealing the conspiracy to sink his ship and claim the insurance.

1958 The Land God Gave To Cain Engineer Ian Ferguson responds to a radio plea for help received by his amateur radio enthusiast father, and sets off to the wilds of Labrador, north-east Canada, to see if the survivors of a plane crash in this barren country are still alive – and what lies behind the conspiracy to try and hush the incident up.

1960 The Doomed Oasis Solicitor George Grant helps young tearaway David Thomas travel to Arabia to find his biological father, the legendary adventurer and oilman Colonel Charles Whitaker, and becomes embroiled in a small Arab war which leads to a siege in an ancient fortress where the rivalry between father and son reaches a tragic conclusion.

1962 Atlantic Fury Painter Duncan Ross is eyewitness to an appalling naval disaster on an island of the Outer Hebrides. But intertwined with this tragedy is the fraught story of his long-lost brother who has stolen another man’s identity. Both plotlines lead inexorably to the bleak windswept island of Laerg.

1965 The Strode Venturer Ex-Merchant Navy captain Geoffrey Bailey finds himself drawn into the affairs of the Strode shipping company which aggressively took over his father’s shipping line, thereby ruining his family and driving his father to suicide. Now, 30 years later, he is hired to track down the rogue son of the family, Peter Strode, who has developed an obsession with a new volcanic atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean, whose mineral wealth might be able to help the Maldive Islanders whose cause he champions.

1971 Levkas Man Merchant seaman Paul goes to find his father, eccentric archaeologist Pieter Van der Voort, another typical Innes obsessive, this time one convinced he can prove his eccentric theories about the origin of Man, Ice Age sea levels, the origin of Atlantis and so on. Much sailing around the Aegean, feelingly described by Innes, before the climax in a vast subterranean cavern covered in prehistoric rock paintings, in an atmosphere heavy with timeless evil, where his father admits to being a murderer.

1973 Golden Soak Alec Falls’ mining business in Cornwall goes bust so he fakes his own death and smuggles himself out to Australia to take up the invitation to visit from a rancher’s daughter he’d met. He finds himself plunged into the mystery and intrigue which surrounds the struggling Jarra Jarra ranch and its failed mine, Golden Soak, a mystery which leads him on a wild chase out into the desolate hell of the Gibson desert where Alec discovers the truth about the mine and the persistent rumours of a vast hill of copper, and witnesses archetypal tragedies of guilt and expiation, of revenge and parricide.

1974 North Star One-time political agitator and seaman Michael Randall tries and fails to escape his complex past as he finds himself embroiled in a plot to blow up a North Sea oil rig, a plot which is led by the father he thought had died decades earlier.

1977 The Big Footprints TV director Colin Tait finds himself caught up in the one-man war of grizzled African hunter and legendary bushman Cornelius van Delden against his old friend, Alex Kirby-Smith, who is now leading the Kenyan government’s drive to cull the country’s wildlife, especially its elephants, to feed a starving population and clear the way for farmers and their cattle, all tied up with Tait’s obsessive quest to find a remote mountain where neolithic man was said to have built the first city in the world.

1980 Solomon’s Seal Property valuer Roy Slingsby prices the contents of an old farmhouse in the Essex countryside and is intrigued by two old albums of stamps from the Solomon Islands. He takes up the offer of a valuing job in Australia and finds himself drawn into the tragic history of the colonial Holland family, the last surviving son of which is running machine guns to be used in the coup and bid for independence of Bougainville Island. Though so much of the detail is calm, rational, business-like, the final impression is of an accursed family and a fated ancestral house which burns down at the novel’s climax.

1982 The Black Tide When his wife dies blowing up an oil tanker which has gone aground near their Cornwall home, ex-merchant seaman Trevor Rodin goes searching for the crew he thinks deliberately ran her aground. His search takes him to Lloyd’s of London, to the Nantes home of the lead suspect and then on to the Persian Gulf, where he discovers several ‘missing’ tankers are in fact being repurposed by terrorists planning to create a devastating environmental disaster somewhere on the coast of Europe. With no money or resources behind him, and nobody believing his far-fetched tale, can Rodin prevent the catastrophe in time?

1985 The High Stand When gold millionaire Tom Halliday and his wife Miriam go missing, their staid Sussex solicitor Philip Redfern finds himself drawn to the old gold mine in the Canadian Rockies which is the basis of the Halliday fortune, and discovers that the illegal felling of the timber planted around the mine is being used as a front for a gang of international drug smugglers, with violent consequences.

1988 Medusa Former smuggler turned respectable ex-pat businessman, Mike Steele, finds his idyllic life on the pretty Mediterranean island of Minorca turning very nasty when he gets mixed up with mercenaries running guns onto the island to support a violent separatist movement and military coup.

1991 Isvik Wood restorer Peter Kettil gets caught up in a crazy scheme to find an old Victorian frigate allegedly spotted locked in the Antarctic ice by a glaciologist before his death in a flying accident. His partners are the nymphomaniac Latino wife of the dead glaciologist, Iris Sunderby, a bizarre Scottish cripple, Iain Ward, and a mysterious Argentine who may or may not have been involved in atrocities under the military junta.

1993 Target Antarctica Booted out of the RAF for his maverick behaviour, pilot Michael ‘Ed’ Cartwright is hired by Iain Ward, the larger-than-life character at the heart of the previous novel, Isvik, to rescue a C-130 Hercules plane off a damaged runway on the Antarctic ice shelf. It takes a lot of shenanigans, not least with a beautiful Thai woman who is pursued by the Khmer Rouge (!), before in the last few pages we realise the whole thing is a scam to extract diamonds from the shallow seabed, diamonds like the ones the survivor of the frigate found in the previous novel.

1996 Delta Connection An astonishing dog’s dinner of a story which starts out reasonably realistically following the adventures of Paul Cartwright, scrap metal consultant, in Romania during the chaotic days leading up to the overthrow of the communist ruler Nicolae Ceaușescu, before moving on to Pakistan and the Khyber Pass where things develop into a violent thriller with car chases and shoot-outs – before jettisoning any attempt at realism and turning into a sort of homage to Rider Haggard’s boys adventure stories as Cartwright and his gay, ex-Army mentor, battle their way through blizzards into the idyllic valley of Nirvana, where they meet the secret underground descendants of Vikings who long ago settled this land, before almost immediately participating in the palace coup which overthrows the brutal ruler and puts on the throne the young woman who Paul fell in love with as a boy back in Romania, where the narrative started.

Essays

Edvard Munch Portraits @ the National Portrait Gallery

Munch at the British Museum 2019

Six years ago the British Museum held a big exhibition of Edvard Munch’s prints, including the famous Scream. In my review of the exhibition I summarised the exhibition’s narrative of how Munch (1863 to 1944), when a youngish man, in the 1890s, was part of a hard-drinking, permissive Bohemian set in the capital of his native Norway, Oslo (then called Kristiana), and how the hedonistic free-love and hard drinking ethos of this world clashed with his strict Protestant rural upbringing to produce an often unbearable tension and angst in the young man. Not just unhappiness – intense mental distress. The British Museum show had numerous quotes from Munch’s journals and diary up on the walls all making the same point:

For as long as I can remember I have suffered from a deep feeling of anxiety which I have tried to express in my art. (1908)

I was walking along the road with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted – and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there, trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature. (22 January 1892)

All art, like music, must be created with one’s lifeblood – Art is one’s lifeblood. (1890)

You get the picture, and a feel for the troubled mentality which produced not only The Scream but a host of other deeply haunting woodcuts – of vampire-like young women, of traumatised couples standing in front of lakes of bottomless meaning and forests of endless threat.

However, alongside the woodcuts and paintings with titles like Despair, Anxiety, Death, and so on, Munch throughout his life was an accomplished painter of portraits, of his family, his Bohemian friends, of society patrons, and of himself. In fact he produced hundreds of them.

Munch at the National Portrait Gallery 2025

This fine exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery brings together 40 of Munch’s portraits, ranging across 40 years of his long career, from the 1880s to the 1920s, for us to enjoy, savour, compare and contrast. It is the first such exhibition to focus on Munch’s portraits ever held in the UK and includes foreign loans never before seen in the UK.

A mixed bag

The main point to make at the start is the great variety of size and treatment over these 40 or so years – and the very variable quality. Munch’s star is obviously in the ascendant and the curators, and many of the media reviewers, make a big case for him being one of the twentieth century’s great portraitists. I just don’t think that’s true. It’s nearly true, there are a lot of good portraits here, including some portraits of writers which have long been classic – but there are a lot of poor paintings here as well; ones I thought were poorly executed, showed bad draughtsmanship, sketchy painting technique.

There are quite a few powerful, notable works, but just as many that I’d cross the road to avoid or wouldn’t look twice at in a general exhibition.

Stories

One other point. The gallery labels accompanying the portraits are excellent and full of interest. Very often exhibition labels fall back on woke clichés or very general descriptions of what you can already see for yourself, and can be exasperating or futile, accordingly.

However the picture captions here are uniformly excellent. Almost all of them move beyond a brief background of the image to give fascinating potted biographies of the subjects, and seeing as these come from a surprisingly broad range of figures, in Norway but also Germany where Munch spent a lot of time, all these potted biographies build up into a fascinating mosaic of the times. They range all the way from the biography of Munch’s father and sisters, via the various writers, artists and poets he knew in his merry Bohemian times, through to fascinating accounts of the physicians, industrialists and patrons he painted, and their lives and fates after he painted them.

Putting to one side the questionable merit of some of the paintings, these potted biographies bring to life a whole world of culture and patronage in north-central Europe which we in Britain, in thrall to a very Paris-based view of modern art, are almost completely ignorant of.

Layout

The exhibition is arranged thematically and chronologically, taking visitors on a four-part journey through Munch’s immediate family, bohemian artists and writers, his patrons and collectors, and finally his closest confidants, the so-called ‘Guardians’ who supported him in his later years. I’ll pick a key work from each section.

1. Family

The earliest paintings, from his early 20s, are small oil paintings of himself, his father and the aunt (Karen Bjølstad) who moved in after his mother died of tuberculosis when he was five (in 1868). I really liked the small portrait of his bearded father – Dr Christian Munch, a military doctor – lighting his pipe. They’re small, dark and inside and hark back to naturalist painting of the 1860s and 70s which he would swiftly work through and move beyond.

Quite quickly we move outside, though, to a much larger work like ‘Evening’ (1888). This, the caption tells us, depicts Munch’s sister, Laura, on a family holiday, just a year before she was permanently hospitalized with schizophrenia. The curators claim it captures her sense of alienation from her surroundings. Do you agree? Apparently in the centre of the painting was a standing figure but Munch painted over it in order to emphasise and increase the sense of distance between the soulful woman and the figures by the lake.

Evening by Edvard Munch (1888) © Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza

2. Bohemian friends

Munch left his family home to study art formally in the mid-1880s, becoming part of the bohemian scene in Kristiania. This was a network of internationally-connected artists and writers whose their ideals ran contrary to the strict religious principles of Munch’s upbringing. They advocated free love, atheism and women’s emancipation.

It was here that he developed a free-er more expressive way with paint which he called ‘soul art’, and which relied on the intensity of the relationship with the sitter as much as technical proficiency. In other words, his brushwork became looser. Leader of this set of freethinkers was the anarchist Hans Jæger whose portrait dominates this section and was chosen by the curators to promote the entire show. They comment on the cynical, confident pose of a man who knows he bosses his social group, comfortably slouched on a sofa in the Grand Café, Kristiana.

Hans Jaeger by Edvard Munch (1889) © Nasjonalmuseet for kunst, arkitektur og design, The Fine Art Collections. Photo: Nasjonalmuseet/Børre Høstland

Munch didn’t stay in Kristiana but travelled to Berlin where he had been invited to show. Here he met the Polish writer and dramatist Stanisław Przybyszewski whose 1894 monograph ‘Das Werk des Edvard Munch’ was the first publication to promote Munch internationally and to suggest the idea of the ‘Naked Soul’ as being fundamental to his work. Przybyszewski believed that society placed such a constraint on basic human instincts that it was the artist’s duty to compensate by giving free rein to unconscious impulses and desires – what he termed ‘the naked soul’.

The other strong work in this section is the portrait of lawyer Thor Lütken. Do you notice anything odd about this picture?

Thor Lütken by Edvard Munch (1892) Private Collection. Photo: Munchmuseet / Sidsel de Jong

The oddity is that, on close inspection, the lawyer’s left sleeve, along the bottom of the picture, contains a moonlit landscape inhabited by two mysterious figures, a man in black and a woman in white.

Detail of Thor Lütken by Edvard Munch (1892) Private Collection. Photo: Munchmuseet / Sidsel de Jong

Are they lovers or a symbolic portrayal of life and death, Death and The Maiden? Whatever the intention, it’s a pretty unconventional thing to do in a professional portrait but indicates the tremendous influence the 1890s movement of Symbolism had on Munch’s thinking.

Talking of Symbolism, the section includes a series of works which aren’t paintings but black-and-white lithographs. These depict some super-famous figures from the time, notably the playwrights Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg, the French Symbolist poet Stephane Mallarmé, and the composer Frederick Delius who Munch met at the health resort of Wiesbaden, alongside group sketches of north European Bohemians in a number of cafes and bars.

The point is that for some of these portraits – notable Ibsen, Mallarmé and a striking portrait of himself – created a novel approach, presenting the sitters as disembodied heads floating in space. The detached floating head was a familiar motif in Symbolist art, signifying a split between the physical and spiritual self but hadn’t been used in such intimate and realistic portraits before.

The novel format does several things. In the portrait of Ibsen it emphasises the distance between the floating head and the busy life going on outside the window; in the wonderful portrait of Mallarmé, probably the most successful likeness in the show, it focuses you on the face and eyes so you feel you are just about to hear a pearl of wisdom from the witty old gent. According to the ever-interesting picture caption, Mallarmé was fascinated by the occult, which may explain the ghost-like feel of the portrait. And he said that the image reminded him of one of the images of Jesus on a holy shroud…

And in the self portrait with skeleton, the jet black background makes Munch’s head seem as if guillotined and floating in space, as in a bizarre dream.

3. Patrons and collectors

The third section of the exhibition examines Munch’s relationship with his patrons and collectors. By the early 20th century, Munch was one of the most exhibited artists in Europe. Returning to Berlin in 1902, he won the support of a group of wealthy and influential collectors, whose patronage further elevated his profile. It’s fascinating to learn that, in the curators’ words, ‘Many had Jewish heritage and held key professional and institutional positions in German society. They all shared an enthusiasm for the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and his belief in the creative power of the individual’ – indeed the influence of Nietzsche’s insistence on the Superman overthrowing all society’s traditional values and creating his own, is mentioned in the commentary of quite a few works from this period. Also, disapproving moralists nowadays frequently associate Nietzsche with the strains of thought which led to the Nazis, so it’s striking to learn that quite so many Jewish figure were attracted by his ideas.

From 1902 to his breakdown in 1908, Munch began to take commissions from the rich and successful and this marked a turning point in his portrait style. Increasingly he painted in bright and bold colours to reflect the dynamism of his sitters. The outstanding work in this section is the super-striking portrait of German physicist Felix Auerbach, commissioned in 1906.

by Edvard Munch (1906) © Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

In my opinion, you can see at least three things going on in this portrait. 1) The face and in particular the eyes address you really directly, with startling immediacy. Their clarity and figurative accuracy are comparable to the Mallarmé image’s eyes.

2) This immediacy distracts you from the fact that a lot of the secondary detail is no precise, is done using Munch’s trademark curves. Look at the hand holding the cigar: the fingers, the hand, the sleeve do not stand out with photographic realism from the background coat but instead are moulded with his trademark blurred curves. Instead of focusing on light and shadow to make the detail crisp, he prefers to go over the rounded outline of the hand again and again, in different colours, to give it an almost cartoon simplicity.

Lastly, of course 3) the bright red background. Maybe it’s an attempt at the actual wallpaper behind this rich patron when he painted him, but it feels more like an aesthetic statement. At first glance it made me think of the Fauves and Matisse who were just starting to do the same kind of thing in France but the wall caption tells me it’s a homage to Van Gogh’s use of bright and non-naturalistic colours. (n fact this painting now resides in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.) It certainly feels like Munch felt free to create any kind of background he wants, and to use very strong vibrant colour in order to create an effect, in this case an extremely powerful and stirring effect.

The redness of the image reminded me of John Singer Sargent’s masterpiece, Dr Pozzi at Home (1881). Look at Sargent’s treatment of the hands, and indeed of the face. Pretty much none of the works in this exhibition demonstrate the draughtsmanship, the accuracy, or the painterly precision of Sargent.

In a very different mode, and much more reminiscent of his famous woodcut prints in its appreciation of feminine sensuality and its air of mystery, is The Brooch (1902), Munch’s lithograph of the Brixton-born violinist Eva Mudocci. As we’ve seen, Munch created a series of Symbolist ‘floating head’ portraits but almost all of them are of men. This portrait of Mudocci is a rare example of a woman depicted in this manner.

The Brooch (Eva Mudocci) by Edvard Munch (1902) © Private collection, courtesy Peder Lund

As usual the picture caption gives us a fascinating potted biography of the sitter and I couldn’t help laughing out loud when I read that ‘Eva Mudocci’ was actually born Evangeline Hope Muddock in Brixton.

These are the outstanding good works in this section, but there began to be ones I didn’t like or felt fell far short of a professional standard. There are three prints from a set of 16 commissioned by a Dr Linde of his wife and young children. These ought to be good and they’re nearly good, but when you look closely, you see that they’re not good. Look at this drawing of his four sons – all the faces are bodged and wonky. Sorry to be so literal minded, but compared to the draughtsmanship of Holbein or Sargent or Lawrence or numerous other painters, ancient and modern, Munch’s technique feels good, but not wow.

Breakdown

Ten years of heavy drinking, of numerous affairs and moving constantly from place to place took their toll and in 1908 Munch had a breakdown. He was admitted to a private nerve clinic in Copenhagen, run by Dr Daniel Jacobson and slowly, steadily made a full recovery, going on to become a virtual teetotaller.

When Jacobson requested a portrait, Munch chose to pose him in a powerful stance echoing Holbein’s iconic portraits of Henry VIII, painted in bright swirling colours as if engulfed by flames. The wall caption amusingly tells us that Jacobson hated the portrait.

Dr Daniel Jacobson by Edvard Munch (1908) © SMK, National Gallery of Denmark. SMK Photo/Jakob Skou-Hansen

This reproduction makes it look quite dark and more coherent than it is in the flesh. In the flesh it is enormous, larger than life size, and scrappy. You can clearly see the untouched canvas through the scrappy hurried brushstrokes. Now ordinarily I really like this kind of thing when it conveys a sense of dynamism, as in Degas, or experimentalism, as in Cézanne. But, sorry everyone, in Munch, for me, it just felt scrappy and half-hearted.

My opinion was exacerbated by the presence in this room of quite a few other middling to poor paintings, which had the effect of dragging the whole thing down. Take Olga and Rosa Meissner from 1908. I can see that Munch is moving into the new world of German Expressionism, in the breakthroughs of post-impressionism, anticipating the scrappy portraits of English artists like Dora Carrington or Vanessa Bell a decade later. But I don’t like it. The faces are poor and the painting style is scrappy and half-hearted.

There were quite a few paintings with this half-finished scrappy vibe in this section and even more in the fourth and final room.

4. The Guardians

Following his recovery at Dr Jacobson’s clinic, in 1909 Munch moved back home and settled permanently in Norway. In that year (1909) Norway had gained independence from its union with Sweden and Munch was hailed a national hero, having been knighted the previous year.

Munch’s recovery of his health and turning away from the ruinous ways of his Bohemian lifestyle were supported by a small group of new friends who he came to call his ‘Lifeguards’ or ‘Guardians’ – friends and supporters he found among writers, artists and patrons. These Lifeguards were so important to Munch that he refused to be parted from their portraits, which acted as talismanic substitutes for them when they weren’t around. So this last section of the exhibition brings together ten or so portraits of these people which, I’m afraid to say, I found almost uniformly ‘bad’.

In its press images the NPG supplies the two strongest pictures in the room, which are the full-length portrait of Jappe Nilssen and the one of Birgit Prestøe in ‘Seated Model on the Couch’ (1924). They do not supply any of the weaker ones, such as the double portrait of Käte and Hugo Perls, of painter Ludvig Karsten or writer Christian Gierløff.

Here’s the best image in the room, the portrait of Jappe Nilssen.

Jappe Nilssen by Edvard Munch (1909) © Munchmuseet. Photo: Munchmuseet / Juri Kobayashi

As you can see, it’s a powerful work, employing van Gogh-style slabs of primary colours to create a dynamic image – although the real source of its power is in the man’s four-square, virile pose. But it’s arguably the best image in the room, and not typical of almost all the others, which feel far weaker and less finished, in at least one case, literally so.

The only other work in the this section that I liked is a portrait of a regular sitter for Munch, Birgit Prestøe. He painted her many times between their meeting in 1924 and 1931.

Seated Model on the Couch (Birgit Prestøe) by Edvard Munch (1924) © Munchmuseet. Photo: Munchmuseet / Sidsel de Jong

I liked this image because, from a distance, it reminded me of the kind of mathematical modernism I really like – the post-cubist angularity of Futurism and Vorticism. But of course, it’s more by accident than design. When you go closer you see that not many of the lines are straight, most are in fact bent or curved or swirly, although I still like the random pools of colour, such as the dark orange on her shoulders and hip and knee.

And here are links to some of the much more characteristic, much less finished, much scrappier, and less pleasing works:

The Olsen, in my view, showcases all Munch’s weaknesses. The draughtsmanship of the face is poor, the arms are worse (at first glance, she looks like a thalydomide victim), the shadow looks like a pool of spilled dirty water.

The Christian Gierløff demonstrates the hold of what I early on came to think of as The Swirl on Munch’s technique, the way 1) the outlines of a figure’s body are echoed and repeated in multiple lines to create a kind of shadowy, faltering effect, and 2) the way the figure doesn’t stand out distinctly from the background, as people do in real life, but what background he can be bothered to paint in shapes itself around the foreground figure. This is most obvious in the rock of whatever it is behind Gierløff and on his right, whose contours entirely shape themselves around his figure, and the yellow line outlining the black which is presumably his shadow, and which curves round to a kind of golden loop on the ground at his feet, which to the schoolboy mind, suggests a puddle of urine.

Clearly Munch considers the backgrounds to his later portraits to be very secondary, to have a mostly decorative effect. Now whereas this works excellently in the striking and very finished portrait of Felix Auerbach, which is indoors, and whose backdrop hovers with pleasing ambiguity between a real wallpaper and pure abstraction – in my opinion this approach does not work when the figure is out of doors and so the background becomes more important, is necessarily more varied, we as animals want to understand the context and precise positioning of a fellow human, so I found Munch’s collapse into semi-abstract swirls and half-arsed shadows, frustrating and incomplete. They’re neither the realism of a Singer Sargent nor the purely decorative abstraction of a Matisse, but a muddy no-man’s-land in between.

Conclusion

The curators, and a surprising number of critics in the papers and magazines, try to persuade us that Munch was one of the great portrait artists of the 20th century. This excellent exhibition makes the strongest possible case for its cause, and is certainly very enjoyable for the biographical and historical facts to be found in all the picture captions – but, in my opinion, ultimately fails. Some of his paintings are excellent, the famous writer lithographs are classic – but, in my opinion, quite a few, especially of the later portraits, are badly drawn, scrappily painted, and the deployment of the swirly outlines which made his 1890s trauma works and the Symbolist portraits so powerful, has degenerated into a messy, irritating mannerism.

Here’s another work which features in the fourth room, a portrait of himself with friend, Torvald Strang.

It’s mildly interesting to learn from the wall caption that 1) the lawyer and barrister Torvald Stang had been a friend of Munch’s since the 1880s, often supporting him during difficult times. He was said to be an elegant man about town. And also to learn that 2) Munch had a strong liking for yellow and often used it as a background for his portraits.

But is this painting any good? Not really, no.

The promotional video


Related links

Related reviews

Orlando: A Biography (1928) by Virginia Woolf

First and foremost ‘Orlando’ is a joke, a jeu d’esprit. Who knew that the author of the essentially tragic novels ‘Jacob’s Room’, ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’ (key figures die in all of them) had a funny bone.

But here she is, creating the comic biography of a fantastical figure, a person who lives from the later years of Queen Elizabeth I (the 1580s) right through to the last pages, set in 1928, some 340 years later.

The comic biographer

Several aspects become clear early on. One is our old friend the intrusive narrator, presenting, displaying and commenting on their presentation of the characters and events. The narrator appears as the gently mocked figure of The Good Biographer, mocking her own role:

Happy the mother who bears, happier still the biographer who records the life of such a one!

And so, mounting up the spiral stairway into his brain–which was a roomy one–all these sights, and the garden sounds too, the hammer beating, the wood chopping, began that riot and confusion of the passions and emotions which every good biographer detests…

Directly we glance at eyes and forehead, we have to admit a thousand disagreeables which it is the aim of every good biographer to ignore.

And the biographer should here call attention to the fact that this clumsiness is often mated with a love of solitude.

Here, indeed, we lay bare rudely, as a biographer may, a curious trait in him…

And so on. From the get-go, the entire concept of a biography is mocked and lampooned from within, so to speak.

Mockery and comic exaggeration

As to the content, this also is lampooned in a number of styles. It is mildly mocking to write something like:

His fathers had been noble since they had been at all. They came out of the northern mists wearing coronets on their heads.

But it is deliberately absurd to write that, from the hilltop in the family park Orlando could see nineteen English counties, on a clear day, thirty or perhaps forty; that you could sometimes see the English Channel in one direction, London off to the east, and away on the horizon Mount Snowdon. This is mockery of the braggadocio of Elizabethan literature, gross exaggeration in the spirit of Rabelais. It is reinforced when we are told that from one side to the other of the family house is five acres! Or that the Billiard Table Court is half a mile away on the south side of the house! That Orlando’s country home could house a thousand men and two thousand horses! Or that in the two years since coming to manhood, he had written ‘no more than’ twenty tragedies, a dozen histories and a score of sonnets!

So early on you realise the book features 1) a humorously intrusive and self-mocking narrator and 2) a stance of Rabelaisian hyperbole.

Sex?

Sex was conspicuous by its complete absence in ‘Jacob’s Room’, ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’. Woolf and her characters are far too well bred to refer to such an ignoble and degrading aspect of human existence. Which makes it all the more surprising that it seems to rear its head here, albeit in comic and slightly puzzling ways.

The first chapter is dominated by the figure of the antique, arthritic, bent and smelly figure of Queen Elizabeth I, shrouded in layers of musty clothing, not, admittedly, at first sight, a very sexy figure. But sex appears to be what she fancies Orlando for.

For the old woman loved him. And the Queen, who knew a man when she saw one, though not, it is said, in the usual way, plotted for him a splendid ambitious career.

‘Not in the usual way’? What might that mean? Vividly but coyly:

At the height of her triumph when the guns were booming at the Tower and the air was thick enough with gunpowder to make one sneeze and the huzzas of the people rang beneath the windows, she pulled him down among the cushions where her women had laid her (she was so worn and old) and made him bury his face in that astonishing composition–she had not changed her dress for a month–which smelt for all the world, he thought, recalling his boyish memory, like some old cabinet at home where his mother’s furs were stored. He rose, half suffocated from the embrace. ‘This’, she breathed, ‘is my victory!’–even as a rocket roared up and dyed her cheeks scarlet.

Hmm, is the rocket that soared up and reddened the old queen’s cheeks a euphemism for something?

Historical fantasia

But these are aspects. The central aim of the text is an opportunity for Woolf to let rip on a personal review of British history without being serious, to pile up exaggerated caricatures of the Elizabethan age, the Augustan era, the nineteenth century, without worrying about accuracy, dates, facts or narrative.

And so it is that pretty quickly in section 1, Orlando is heading off to the darkest dives of dockland and hearing outrageous stories of pirates and buccaneers! The queen had already spied him, through a half open door, kissing a waiting woman, and smashed a mirror in her jealous rage. Now Orlando appears to sleep with common trulls down at the docks.

But when he gets bored and returns to court, magically years have passed, it is now the court of King James and we for the first time realise how time is going to skate by for our young hero. At the Jacobean court Orlando has affairs with three ladies, being Clorinda, Favilla, Euphrosyne, and writes them all poems. Poems and poetry are, we realise, going to be a big deal for Orlando, a lifelong obsession.

The Great Frost comes and freezes the Thames solid. At about this point, 30 pages in, I began to notice the absence of dialogue. Woolf enjoys piling description on description of comically exaggerated Horrible Histories aspects of each era, but there is no real plot and no real incidents. Nothing detailed and specific enough happens to warrant dialogue.

Love inevitably

All this sounds promising but there has been a fatality, a thumping inevitability about the Edwardian novels I’ve read over the past few months, the novels of H.G. Wells, E.M. Forster, D.H. Lawrence and now Virginia Woolf – which is that they’ve all been about LOVE. LURV. Relations between the sexes. Mating.

As ornately written and psychologically penetrating as they may be, in the end they all rotate around the same theme as a corny Richard Curtis movie: Love Actually or Bridget Jones’s Diary. And so it is here, love love love dominates what passes for a plot on ‘Orlando’

And so it is that the coming of the Great Frost is only the backdrop for Orlando falling for the (comically named) Princess Marousha Stanilovska Dagmar Natasha Iliana Romanovitch and they have an affair.

Androgyny

Literary academics, especially feminist ones, have been obsessed by sex and gender for generations, since when? the 1960s? Earlier? So for 60 years or more ‘Orlando’ has been a goldmine for lecturers in feminist studies, women’s literature, queer studies and so on. The reason is that, instead of a decent plot which develops and ramifies over the three centuries the book covers (a notion which has all kinds of science fiction possibilities), instead ‘Orlando’ really only contains one event – half way through it, Woolf has her protagonist change gender, from man to woman, a dazzling transformation which completely overshadows the book’s feeble attempts at a plot.

Orlando was a man till the age of thirty; when he became a woman and has remained so ever since.

The way had been prepared for this surprise by some (admittedly only a handful) of moments when the protagonist of her book questions the gender of the people he falls in love with. Thus he is initially unsure about the gender of the Russian he is attracted to:

He beheld, coming from the pavilion of the Muscovite Embassy, a figure, which, whether boy’s or woman’s, for the loose tunic and trousers of the Russian fashion served to disguise the sex, filled him with the highest curiosity… When the boy, for alas, a boy it must be–no woman could skate with such speed and vigour–swept almost on tiptoe past him, Orlando was ready to tear his hair with vexation that the person was of his own sex, and thus all embraces were out of the question. But the skater came closer. Legs, hands, carriage, were a boy’s, but no boy ever had a mouth like that; no boy had those breasts; no boy had eyes which looked as if they had been fished from the bottom of the sea.

This is his first sighting and falling lust with the Princess Marousha Stanilovska Dagmar Natasha Iliana Romanovitch, which serves to introduce the theme of androgyny or gender ambiguity. And there’s some sex, maybe, described with the same vagueness as the Queen Elizabeth scenes:

Hot with skating and with love they would throw themselves down in some solitary reach, where the yellow osiers fringed the bank, and wrapped in a great fur cloak Orlando would take her in his arms, and know, for the first time, he murmured, the delights of love. Then, when the ecstasy was over and they lay lulled in a swoon.

But it’s the big switcheroo from male to female on page 87 which has excited gender-obsessed academics, commentators and critics from Virginia’s day to our own.

London

Love is a boring subject, love and marriage and affairs and infidelity – after the first few thousand novels centred on love and marriage you wonder whether writers can imagine any other subject. And the sex-changing androgyny at the centre of this book may get leather-jacketed academics hot and bothered but is, in the end, surprisingly dull, surprisingly underdeveloped.

Instead I preferred to think that maybe for the first hundred pages until Orlando changes sex, what the book is really about is London. London is, after all, the unnamed star of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and here, again, it is a central character. The notion of a whistlestop tour through history from Elizabethan times allows Woolf to write long passages describing London dressed for various historical pageants and carnivals, which are very enjoyable.

The historic scenery of London:

It was an evening of astonishing beauty. As the sun sank, all the domes, spires, turrets, and pinnacles of London rose in inky blackness against the furious red sunset clouds. Here was the fretted cross at Charing; there the dome of St Paul’s; there the massy square of the Tower buildings; there like a grove of trees stripped of all leaves save a knob at the end were the heads on the pikes at Temple Bar. Now the Abbey windows were lit up and burnt like a heavenly, many-coloured shield (in Orlando’s fancy); now all the west seemed a golden window with troops of angels (in Orlando’s fancy again) passing up and down the heavenly stairs perpetually. (p.30, compare p.144)

The historical people of London:

By this time Orlando and the Princess were close to the Royal enclosure and found their way barred by a great crowd of the common people, who were pressing as near to the silken rope as they dared. Loth to end their privacy and encounter the sharp eyes that were on the watch for them, the couple lingered there, shouldered by apprentices; tailors; fishwives; horse dealers, cony catchers; starving scholars; maid-servants in their whimples; orange girls; ostlers; sober citizens; bawdy tapsters; and a crowd of little ragamuffins such as always haunt the outskirts of a crowd, screaming and scrambling among people’s feet–all the riff-raff of the London streets indeed was there, jesting and jostling, here casting dice, telling fortunes, shoving, tickling, pinching… (p.31)

You get the picture. Or rather series of pictures. Maybe the book is like leafing through a series of historical tableaux – the ice and skating of this particular passage reminded me of the winter scenes of countless Dutch painters.

Cheesy pulp

At the same time, quite often it reads like the cheesiest kind of historical melodrama, a ripping historical yarn by Robert Louis Stevenson or any number of his copyists. Here is Orlando planning to meet up with his mistress and escape from London!

The darkness then became even deeper than before. Orlando looked to the wicks of his lantern, saw to the saddle girths; primed his pistols; examined his holsters; and did all these things a dozen times at least till he could find nothing more needing his attention. Though it still lacked some twenty minutes to midnight, he could not bring himself to go indoors to the inn parlour, where the hostess was still serving sack and the cheaper sort of canary wine to a few seafaring men… The darkness was more compassionate to his swollen and violent heart. He listened to every footfall; speculated on every sound. Each drunken shout and each wail from some poor wretch laid in the straw or in other distress cut his heart to the quick, as if it boded ill omen to his venture. (p.33)

‘As if it boded ill omen to his venture.’ Woolf is letting her hair down. Having worked so hard at capturing the ever-changing moods of her characters in ‘Jacob’s Room’, ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’, this is a holiday. Let’s write a historical fantasia in the melodramatic cod Elizabethan!

So what about the plot?

Chapter 1. Elizabeth I and James I

Orlando comes of age in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. She makes him a favourite of hers and they have one or two close encounters till she sees him kissing a waiting lady in some corridor so he hides out in the pubs and stews of docklands. By the time Orlando tires of this, King James I is on the throne and so Orlando attends court. He is betrothed to Lady Margaret O’Brien O’Dare O’Reilly Tyrconnel who he writes a sonnet sequence for. But he falls in love with the Princess Marousha Stanilovska Dagmar Natasha Iliana Romanovitch (from Russia) who he calls Sasha. It is the winter of the Great Frost and they ice skate on the frozen Thames. He arranges to elope with her one dark and stormy night (in order to run away from his engagement to Lady Margaret) but she never shows up and, at dawn, he sees that the frost has thawed and the Thames is flowing again. Riding downstream Orlando sees that the previously ice-bound ships are now all free, and sees on the horizon the ship of the Ambassador from Muscovy which has sailed, with Sasha onboard. Oh well.

Chapter 2. From Charles I to Charles II

As mentioned, the narrative enjoys mocking the figure of The Biographer:

The biographer is now faced with a difficulty which it is better perhaps to confess than to gloss over. Up to this point in telling the story of Orlando’s life, documents, both private and historical, have made it possible to fulfil the first duty of a biographer, which is to plod, without looking to right or left, in the indelible footprints of truth; unenticed by flowers; regardless of shade; on and on methodically till we fall plump into the grave and write finis on the tombstone above our heads. (38)

So Orlando goes home to his country estate and sleeps for a week solid. When he awakes he can barely remember his former self, which gives rise to some Woolfian comedy:

Has the finger of death to be laid on the tumult of life from time to time lest it rend us asunder? Are we so made that we have to take death in small doses daily or we could not go on with the business of living? And then what strange powers are these that penetrate our most secret ways and change our most treasured possessions without our willing it? Had Orlando, worn out by the extremity of his suffering, died for a week, and then come to life again? And if so, of what nature is death and of what nature life? Having waited well over half an hour for an answer to these questions, and none coming, let us get on with the story.

I was hoping something would happen but nothing much does. Instead, alas, all that Woolf can think to do with her character is make him bookish, like her, like her family, like her Bloomsbury circle. It feels like a lamentable failure of imagination.

And so it turns out young Orlando is addicted to reading and, with thumping inevitability, also to writing. The narrator jokes about it a bit and so with the standard comic exaggeration ‘the biographer’ claims that before the age of 25 Orlando has already written some forty-seven plays, histories, romances, poems; some in prose, some in verse; some in French, some in Italian; all romantic, and all long’ (p.45). As far as it goes that’s sort of funny but… a bookish writer making the hero of her book a bookish writer… It feels like a failure of imagination.

There follows a mock epic, tongue-in-cheek description of Orlando the poet’s great struggles with Memory and Composition but you can’t help being disappointed that he is (alas) trying to write about ‘love’. Around page 50 I began to wonder whether I could be bothered to finish this increasingly laboured joke.

In the ‘Oxen of the Sun’ chapter of his famous modernist novel, ‘Ulysses’, James Joyce pastiches the evolution of the English language, its syntax, grammar and vocabulary, from Old English through to the 19th century. Woolf’s attempts to pastiche Elizabethan and Jacobean prose are nowhere next to Joyce’s genius. It might have been interesting if Woolf had indicated the passing years by a slowly evolving prose style matching each era, but she doesn’t. It’s quite obvious she’s not capable of such precision. Instead the prose is just a feeble cod-Elizabethan which often gives way to just bad historical bodice-ripper prose, which is not particularly convincing.

Take a sentence from the quote above:

Has the finger of death to be laid on the tumult of life from time to time lest it rend us asunder?

This is more Victorian than Elizabethan: ‘rend us asunder’ is from the age of Tennyson not Shakespeare, and indicates the fundamental Victorian basis of all Woolf’s prose.

Back to the plot or what there is of it: Orlando invites a supposed poet, Nicholas Greene, for dinner. But instead of the inspired words of fire which Orlando is naively made to expect, Greene actually regales Orlando with a list of his physical ailments, complains how poorly poetry pays, and rattles off reasons for despising Shakespeare, Marlowe and Donne (although he likes Ben Jonson). Apparently, they are all money-minded drunkards who scribbled down snatches of verse on the back of laundry lists.

The Biographer tells us that Nicholas told a thousand and one witty anecdotes about these great names but, unfortunately, none of them are repeated here and the reader can’t help feel very badly cheated. Can’t Woolf make up even one little tale? No. Not a flicker of interest.

Orlando feels for Greene ‘a strange mixture of liking and contempt, of admiration and pity’ and I couldn’t help feeling the same for Woolf. All the effort that went into this long farrago, all the posh people she consulted and she names in a swanky two-page Acknowledgements section. And yet not a single laugh in the entire work. Sad face.

Greene repays Orlando’s hospitality by returning to his chaotic house in London and rattling off a biting satire of the Orlando and his mansion (‘Visit to a Nobleman in the Country’), which includes quotations from Orlando’s favourite tragedy (which he generously shared with him), and becomes very popular. When shown a copy, Orlando orders it to be buried in a midden and orders a flunky to travel to Norway and bring back a batch of elk hounds, for, in his disgust, he has done with the world of men.

And so Orlando takes to walking round his beautiful park enjoying nature and the changing seasons. Though on all these long walks he is still troubled by the tritest of questions: what is love? what is friendship? what is truth?

In a couple of paragraphs Woolf throws away one of the two or three premises of the book, explaining that clock time and the time we experience are often at odds or even contradict each other – as if nobody else had ever noticed this before or it had never been written down and analysed by plenty of cleverer minds.

Her hero vapours on about Love and Truth and Poetry for page after page. As I struggled through this piffle I remembered that Woolf, born in 1882, was fully formed during the late-Victorian era i.e. was 18 when Queen Victoria finally died, and still, in 1927, was whiffling on about essentially Victorian issues and using a Victorian reading list. She tells us that Orlando goes on ‘thinking’ but, unfortunately, doesn’t give him anything to think about, except Love and Truth and Poetry. Elizabethan literature has a kind of intellectual virility about it at the same time as its astonishing sensuality. ‘Orlando’ has neither. The resolutely sexless Woolf emasculates everything she touches. Orlando’s thoughts and occasional verse sound like John Keats on a very off day.

Very casually, in a throwaway sentence, we learn that Orlando has mooned about his park for the entire Civil War, the execution of Charles I, the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, and now a new king (Charles II) has been restored (p.65). Well, that is a massive opportunity missed, the most dramatic events in British history glossed over in preference for Orlando’s worthless vapourings about love, pages and pages of stuff like this:

And he despaired of being able to solve the problem of what poetry is and what truth is and fell into a deep dejection.

Orlando decides to renovate his comically vast mansion (with its three hundred and sixty-five bedrooms and 52 staircases) and the author gives us a plethora of details, claiming the list of repairs ran to 99 pages.

The arrival of lists and numbers prompted the thought that the book had turned into a sort of cod historical version of Flaubert’s masterpiece, Bouvard and Pecuchet (1881), in which a pair of half-educated dolts set out to make themselves masters of all human knowledge. Orlando sets about renovating his mansion with much the same encyclopedic attention to detail. Or like Joris-Karl Huysmans’ famous novel, Against the Grain (1884), in which a jaded nobleman locks himself away in his country house to savour the exquisite products of decadence. ‘Orlando’ has the same sense of Woolf working through a list of topics in a mechanical, plodding way. Except that it entirely lacks the style and wit of the two French novels. Wit relies on precision; instead Woolf has airy whimsy, a completely different quality. Woolf is always vague and explicitly celebrates the vagueness of her female protagonists (Clarissa Dalloway, Mrs Ramsay, Eleanor Pargiter).

So Orlando completely renovates his vast mansion and then, noticing how cold and empty it feels, embarks on a mad course of entertainment, such that the 365 bedrooms are always full and the 52 staircases always thronged, for which he is rewarded with many accolades and honours from local and national worthies and, of course, numerous poems written about him etc.

One day out of the blue appears in the inner courtyard a very tall woman on a horse. It is the Archduchess Harriet Griselda of Finster-Aarhorn and Scand-op-Boom in the Roumanian territory. (Clearly Woolf thinks that giving her women characters cumbrously long names is side-splittingly funny.)

Griselda titters and haw haws uncontrollably. On a further visit she stoops down to attach a piece of armour to Orlando’s leg and our hero suddenly feels the pangs of love, because this is, apparently, the only plot subject Woolf can think of.

Intellectual arguments about religion or politics from the great century of political and religious upheaval, about the advent of the New Science, the founding of the Royal Society, the new fashion for experimental science? No. Love actually.

In fact, surprisingly, it might also have something to do with LUST. If I’m reading the euphemistic roundabout way she describes it, I think the sight of a pretty woman kneeling in front of him triggers a natural physical reaction in Orlando, which the narrator melodramatically figures in allegorical form as a filthy vulture, perching on our hero’s shoulder.

And so Orlando does what any self-respecting gentleman would do under the circumstances, which is he goes to see King Charles (II) and asks to be sent as ambassador to Constantinople. The random arbitrariness of this is a bit funny.

Chapter 3. Constantinople and a sex change

Woolf starts the chapter with another jocose lampoon of the figure of the well-meaning biographer. I suppose this is a pastiche of Restoration or Augustan prose.

It is, indeed, highly unfortunate, and much to be regretted that at this stage of Orlando’s career, when he played a most important part in the public life of his country, we have least information to go upon. We know that he discharged his duties to admiration–witness his Bath and his Dukedom. We know that he had a finger in some of the most delicate negotiations between King Charles and the Turks–to that, treaties in the vault of the Record Office bear testimony. But the revolution which broke out during his period of office, and the fire which followed, have so damaged or destroyed all those papers from which any trustworthy record could be drawn, that what we can give is lamentably incomplete. Often the paper was scorched a deep brown in the middle of the most important sentence. Just when we thought to elucidate a secret that has puzzled historians for a hundred years, there was a hole in the manuscript big enough to put your finger through. We have done our best to piece out a meagre summary from the charred fragments that remain; but often it has been necessary to speculate, to surmise, and even to use the imagination. (p.74)

I.e. it’s a fiction and she’s making most of this up, we get it. The joke is wearing a bit thin.

The narrator gives a caricature exaggeration of the elaborate court ceremonial which has to be performed in each of a dizzying succession of rooms in the Sultan’s palace. This reminded me of the elaborate fictions of Jorge Luis Borges whose first short stories were published only a decade after ‘Orlando’.

There is a very great deal to be said about the legacy of Byzantium, the history of the Ottoman Empire, and the intricacy of British relations with the Sublime Porte – none of which Woolf mentions. Instead she reverts to the only subject she can think of, and has Orlando slipping off at night to mingle with the common people or withdraw to his rooms in order to write poetry. Ah poetry. Yes, poetry. About love, Love, LOVE!

While in Istanbul, Orlando is awarded the Order of the Bath and made a Duke, ceremonies the narrator tells in facetious fragments supposedly written by eye-witnesses (John Fenner Brigge, an English naval officer, and Miss Penelope Hartopp). The narrator excitedly tells us that rumour has it that at the very end of the evening a local woman was hoisted by a rope to his quarters. Next morning his servants find Orlando fast asleep in bed beside a marriage contract to a Rosina Pepita, a dancer, father unknown, but reputed a gipsy, mother also unknown but reputed a seller of old iron in the market-place over against the Galata Bridge.

But what happens next is the Grand Transformation: the real point of these events is that Orlando sleeps for a whole week, sleeps right through a rebellion against the Sultan which Woolf completely fails to describe because she is just not that kind of writer. Instead the text turns into a half-arsed masque featuring the allegorical figures the Lady of Purity, our Lady of Chastity and our Lady of Modesty.

Not only is the supposed poetry of the masque speeches poor, but it feels like it’s from the wrong period. Allegorical masques were all the rage in the court of Charles I, in the later 1620s and 1630s. If we’re in the Restoration era then the fashion is for John Dryden‘s heroic couplets or the acid wit of the Restoration dramatists. But as I’ve made clear, Woolf wasn’t interested in historical accuracy or intellectual precision.

Anyway, when Orlando wakes up after this farrago, he stands naked and is revealed – as a woman! It’s a simple fact: Orlando was a man till the age of thirty, when he became a woman, and has remained so ever since. The narrator comments:

Let other pens treat of sex and sexuality

And they have, Virginia, they have.

You might have thought this transition from male to female would have a fairly big psychological impact on the person in question but Woolf, in a massive own goal, ignores it completely, her heroine takes her transformation utterly in her stride. She’s a woman now, oh well. All the physical changes and any psychological changes are simply unremarked, go completely unexplored. It feels like a massive wasted opportunity.

Instead Orlando decides… to run away to join the gypsies. Seriously. She smuggles herself out of Constantinople and joins a gypsy band based in Thessaly. Even here she doesn’t reflect on the strange turn her life has taken but is soon thinking about ‘Love, Friendship, Poetry’, the only subjects Woolf cares about. We are told that Orlando writes a long blank verse poem about the beauty of nature though, characteristically, we don’t see a line of it.

Orlando takes to rambling about the landscape, glorying in nature but when she tells the gypsies about her huge mansion in England, that her family is 4 or 5 hundred years old and features many dukes and lords, all this alienates the gypsies from her and some of the young ones plan to kill her. But even this doesn’t give rise to any exciting writing, romantic escape etc. Instead one day Orlando simply has a vision of England’s green and pleasant countryside and announces she’s going back to England. So she packs her things and catches a ship home.

Chapter 4. Back to England in the age of Queen Anne

It’s only on the ship back to England that Orlando starts to ponder the differences between men and women. Becoming a woman means she now has to 1) protect her chastity from endless male attention and 2) spend a huge amount of time becoming a woman i.e. dressing, looking and smelling nice to please male preconceptions. It’s a thin yield to such a seismic plot twist. Is this going to be it? Half a page of feminist clichés?

London has changed. It’s been rebuilt since the Great Fire, starring Christopher Wren’s St Paul’s cathedral. She discovers that in her absence relatives have taken out lawsuits against her.

Orlando goes back to her country seat where she’s welcomed by her loyal staff who don’t care whether she’s a man or a woman (again this curious air of complete indifference). She is revisited by the tiresome the Archduchess Harriet Griselda of Finster-Aarhorn and Scand-op-Boom in the Roumanian territory, the one who caused her to flee England in the first place but there is a bit of a surprise: the Archduchess now sheds her dresses and reveals herself as… a man! (p.114) Henceforth to be known as Archduke Harry.

Harry explains that he only dressed up as a woman because Orlando was a man and he was in love with him. He explains that now that Orlando is a woman (which he accepts with as little interest as everyone else) he can reveal his true self and declare he is in love, love being the only subject the narrative knows (well, love and poetry).

So Harry insists on visiting every day, to woo her, to make love to her, to talk about marriage – until Orlando finally manages to drive him away by letting herself be caught cheating at cards.

Sexist stereotypes

Woolf is not just a feminist icon but a queer icon for the lesbian love affair she had with Vita Sackville-West for whom she wrote this farrago. In a way the funniest thing about ‘Orlando’ is the way that, despite its gender-swapping central event, it is in fact deeply conservative in what it says about men and women. It is premised on the notion of fixed gender identities. It is not a hymn to the modern woke idea of gender fluidity: the precise opposite. Woolf conceives of Men having certain fixed and predictable attributes and Women having certain fixed and predictable attributes. What makes her book novel (up to a point) is the notion of her protagonist transitioning from one sex to the other, but the sexes in question remain fixed points, indeed the very notion of there being just two sexes indicates how very old-fashioned the book’s gender politics are.

Thus, as I say, some of the best comedy in the book is entirely unintentional and derives from savouring Woolf’s surprisingly reactionary gender stereotyping.

Her modesty as to her writing, her vanity as to her person, her fears for her safety all seems to hint that what was said a short time ago about there being no change in Orlando the man and Orlando the woman, was ceasing to be altogether true. She was becoming a little more modest, as women are, of her brains, and a little more vain, as women are, of her person.

The truth is that when we write of a woman, everything is out of place–culminations and perorations; the accent never falls where it does with a man… (p.204)

She would burst into tears on slight provocation. She was unversed in geography, found mathematics intolerable, and held some caprices which are more common among women than men, as for instance that to travel south is to travel downhill…

Incidentally, this trope of women being dim occurs in all the Woolf novels I’ve read. Compare and contrast Mrs Ramsay in ‘To The Lighthouse’ who knows nothing about maths or philosophy and has such poor general knowledge that she doesn’t know where the equator is; or the superficial cultural smattering of Mrs Dalloway who can never remember what subject her husband’s select committees are so fussed about.

Anyway, Orlando takes a coach up to her father’s big house in Blackfriars, an area of London. She has come to London looking for ‘life and a lover’ which really does seem to be the only subject Woolf can give her protagonist to think about.

The chauvinism of the novelist

At one point Woolf writes that historians don’t know anything about history. Only the poets and novelists can be trusted to convey a historical period.

To give a truthful account of London society at that or indeed at any other time, is beyond the powers of the biographer or the historian. Only those who have little need of the truth, and no respect for it – the poets and the novelists – can be trusted to do it, for this is one of the cases where the truth does not exist. (p.123)

This is garbage. Poets and novelists really can not be trusted to convey the truth of a society. That is what historians do. Woolf justifies this gibberish by saying that there is no truth in a spirit which would make Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin beam with delight. Well, no, there is a truth, or more precisely, it is worthwhile striving towards a truthful, or less lying and less inaccurate account of a society’s history, and that is what western historians strive to do. Their work should be respected and not dismissed by a flippertigibbet novelist. Woolf’s opinions are starting to strike me as not just debatable, but idiotic.

1712

Suddenly it is 1712 and the reign of Queen Anne. Orlando is bored because she cannot find love, the only subject which Woolf, in a rather patronising sexist kind of way, can give her heroine.

Tell, don’t show

In ‘To The Lighthouse’ all the characters are made to agree that Mr Ramsay is a Great Man, a Great Thinker, an Eminent Philosopher, fiercely clever. And yet he nowhere in the entire book actually says or even thinks anything clever or even interesting. Instead he comes over as a bad-tempered domestic tyrant, a bully with a fondness for stupid jokes.

Similarly, on almost every page of this tedious book we are shown Orlando with pen in hand, Orlando having great thoughts, Orlando writing plays and sonnets, Orlando revising his boyhood poem about an oak tree, Orlando thinking about poetry, and the narrator won’t shut up about Poetry and Love and Poetry and Life and yet… we are not shown a single line of Orlando’s poetry and he or she never, at any point, says anything interesting or funny.

In the Queen Anne section we are told that Orlando ‘wrote some very pleasant, witty verses and characters in prose’ (p.136) but we are not shown them. Why not? You can only conclude it’s because Woolf couldn’t write them or daren’t show us her efforts.

It’s exactly the same way the section featuring Nick Greene tells us he was simply overflowing with wonderful anecdotes about Shakespeare, Marlowe and Ben Jonson, so funny! did all their voices! knew so many hilarious stories! and yet… the book doesn’t contain a single one, in fact has nothing of interest to say about them (or, indeed, any of the many other classics of English literature from later eras which it cheerfully namedrops).

The book is full of promise and hype and absolutely empty of content. It is all mouth and no trousers. One short story by Oscar Wilde has more wit, more intelligence and acuity than these 200 laboured pages. Here is Orlando taking a coach ride with the famous poet Alexander Pope and realising he’s not that funny after all.

A disillusionment so complete as that inflicted not an hour ago leaves the mind rocking from side to side. Everything appears ten times more bare and stark than before. It is a moment fraught with the highest danger for the human spirit. Women turn nuns and men priests in such moments. In such moments, rich men sign away their wealth; and happy men cut their throats with carving knives. (p.130)

This is just bombastic empty verbiage, as is most of ‘Orlando’.

In exactly the same way, Orlando is admitted to a small friendship group of prostitutes – Nell and Prue and Kitty and Rose – ‘and many were the fine tales they told and many the amusing observations they made’ and do you think we hear any of these many fine tales? Not a sausage. It’s so disappointing, this could have been such an enjoyable historical romp. Instead it only serves to reveal Woolf’s imaginative shortcomings.

Back to the plot: the narrator tells us that Orlando took to wearing the clothes of either sex and enjoying the benefits of both genders, ‘and enjoyed the love of both sexes equally’.

So then one may sketch her spending her morning in a China robe of ambiguous gender among her books; then receiving a client or two (for she had many scores of suppliants) in the same garment; then she would take a turn in the garden and clip the nut trees–for which knee-breeches were convenient; then she would change into a flowered taffeta which best suited a drive to Richmond and a proposal of marriage from some great nobleman; and so back again to town, where she would don a snuff-coloured gown like a lawyer’s and visit the courts to hear how her cases were doing,–for her fortune was wasting hourly and the suits seemed no nearer consummation than they had been a hundred years ago; and so, finally, when night came, she would more often than not become a nobleman complete from head to toe and walk the streets in search of adventure. (p.142)

I suppose it’s vaguely interesting that she wears different clothes to reflect her mood, but it’s not really a plot. Right at the end of part 4 Orlando looks out the window on a fine night, thinking how much cleaner and safer the streets are in 18th century London than the narrow dangerous alleys of Elizabethan London. But when the clocks start to toll midnight a big black cloud gathers over St Paul’s and spreads over all of London. The nineteenth century has arrived!

Chapter 5. The nineteenth century

Ignoring the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the consolidation of the British Empire and the rise of the working class, Woolf instead focuses on the issue of damp.

With no evidence except her own whimsy, she declares that at the start of the nineteenth century the country suddenly became damp. Clothes became thicker, furniture was covered up, men grew thick whiskers to cope with the damp. Not just clothes but words and concepts became more thickly wrapped. ‘Love, birth, and death were all swaddled in a variety of fine phrases.’ The sexes were forced wide apart. ‘Sentences swelled, adjectives multiplied, lyrics became epics, and little trifles that had been essays a column long were now encyclopaedias in ten or twenty volumes.’

This summary of the heaviness of the Victorian era is possibly the funniest passage in the book because it is the most acute. She is satirising the Victorian values of her own parents.

Back to the massive mansion Orlando goes and there, to my surprise, Woolf does finally share with us some lines of verse Orlando has written.

I am myself but a vile link
Amid life’s weary chain,
But I have spoken hallow’d words,
Oh, do not say in vain!

Will the young maiden, when her tears,
Alone in moonlight shine,
Tears for the absent and the loved,
Murmur– (p.154)

Not good, even as pastiche.

Orlando becomes aware that the new spirit of the age (the nineteenth century) is all for marriage. She feels crushed by Queen Victoria’s famous uxoriousness. She feels she has to give in to the times and take a husband.

Incidentally, the text tells us Orlando has by now been alive some 300 years but is aged only ‘a year or two past thirty’. This premise has such promise for a science fiction or fantasy novel, and yet is so badly let down in the execution of this narrative.

Orlando goes for a walk through her enormous park, decides she is in love with nature, with the moor, the grass, the sky, trips and breaks her ankle. As she’s lying there communing with nature a horse rides up and a gentleman jumps off to help her. It is Marmaduke Bonthrop Shelmerdine, Esquire (this is a book of silly names) and a few minutes later they are engaged!

There is a peculiar moment when they both panic that the other is not of the sex they claim i.e. she is a man and he is a woman, but they emerge unscathed and he tells her loads of tales of adventure on the high seas which are told in such a flippant way as not to be remotely funny.

Orlando gets letters declaring all the law cases she’s been involved in since returning from Constantinople are ended and that she is 1) legally a woman 2) the legal owner of the estate. There was never really any jeopardy of this not being the result, and it wouldn’t have mattered if it hadn’t. It’s a whimsical fantasy drowning in its own inconsequentiality. Nothing matters.

A fantastical passage describes Orlando and Marmaduke’s days of mooning around the park and how they use different nicknames to indicate different moods. I suppose this, as when Orlando wears different clothes to indicate different moods (and even genders) is introducing the notion that we all contain multiple identities.

Until one afternoon as they’re lazing about and leaves start falling on them and, as in a fairy tale, they both jump up and run straight to the chapel and insist that old Mr Dupper the chaplain married them at once. So Orlando is married, ludicrously, inconsequentiality.

Chapter 6.

Almost immediately Marmaduke rides off in a storm to captain a boat round the Cape of Good Hope. Orlando goes inside and finds herself writing another verse:

And then I came to a field where the springing grass
Was dulled by the hanging cups of fritillaries,
Sullen and foreign-looking, the snaky flower,
Scarfed in dull purple, like Egyptian girls:–

Bad, isn’t it? Clunky rhythm.

There’s a short passage which is maybe an attempt to justify the way Woolf has covered 300 years of British history without mentioning any history, instead giving a tedious account of her subject’s supposed ‘loves’.

When we are writing the life of a woman, we may, it is agreed, waive our demand for action, and substitute love instead. Love, the poet has said, is woman’s whole existence.

We know that Woolf was a fierce feminist and so presumably this is intended to be ironical or satirical – except that the irony is undercut by the fact that her entire published works tend to reinforce the stereotype that women’s main concern is love, emotions, marriage and children – it’s true not only of this book but of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’ where the majority of the woman protagonist’s existence and thinking is taken up by endlessly circling thoughts about old loves, new loves, lost loves, found loves, marriage, family and children. We have the evidence of her own novels.

Alternatively, maybe the mind-numbingly narrow subject matter of ‘Orlando’ is itself a sort of satire on the reader’s sexist expectations, gently mocking the readers’ sexist expectations of what a woman’s concerns will be – but I don’t think so. ‘Orlando’ seems, to me, to embody and propagate those very sexist stereotypes, that a sensitive woman has few if any interests beyond love and poetry. What happens at the end of the book? Orlando goes shopping then spends the afternoon wandering round a lovely National Trust property. And this book is claimed to smash gender stereotypes?

Take the fact that Orlando hasn’t noticed the invention of the steam engines or trains. When she asks the servants to prepare a coach to take her to London, they tell her to catch the 11.15 train for Charing Cross station and have to explain the concept of the ‘railway’. Railways have arrived and Orlando hasn’t noticed. Orlando’s complete indifference to history, society, science and technology, engineering, politics, empire, wars and new customs are a badge of pride. Can’t help thinking it reflects the attitude of her creator is, likewise, proud of her ignorance of the practicalities of modern life.

Once Orlando is in London there’s a moderately interesting passage describing how the clean 18th century London she knew has been transformed into the bustling metropolis full of people shouting and the incessant traffic in every direction. As I mentioned at the start, the most profitable way of reading the book might be to just read the passages describing London through the ages and skip all the brain-dead guff in between about Love and Life and Poetry.

In Victorian London Orlando bumps into her old friend Nick Greene, who is now a plump and successful professor of literature. Woolf mocks his kind of mentality by having him still makes the same complaints he made in the Elizabethan era, namely that the golden era of literature is over and the moderns are just shabby hirelings. There is also some satire on contemporary publishing, with Nick giving savvy advice about royalties and buttering up the critics – but surely this is only amusing for readers who think that writers writing books satirising writers writing books is what the world was crying out for, in either 1928 or 2025.

Anyway, Orlando gives Nick the manuscript of the long poem he’s been working on for the last 300 years, about an oak tree, Nick promises to get it published and leaves. So then Orlando wanders the streets of London very, very much as Clarissa Dalloway does in the novel named after her. She is amazed at the concept of a bookshop and the funny blocks of thin paper covered in card, compared to the manuscripts she herself handled and still owns. Books, that is Woolf’s central subject and fascination. Hardly anything else in 300 years of British history registers.

Sort of justifying this, there’s a passage which repeats the central idea of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’ which is that rational thought about anything doesn’t matter, is irrelevant, can be ignored, because all that counts is Life, the sensation of living which, in practice, means a never-ending stream of consciousness of sensations and perceptions.

It is not articles by Nick Greene on John Donne nor eight-hour bills nor covenants nor factory acts that matter; it’s something useless, sudden, violent; something that costs a life; red, blue, purple; a spirit; a splash; like those hyacinths (she was passing a fine bed of them); free from taint, dependence, soilure of humanity or care for one’s kind; something rash, ridiculous, like my hyacinth, husband I mean, Bonthrop: that’s what it is – a toy boat on the Serpentine, ecstasy – it’s ecstasy that matters. (p.188)

This feels very much like a rationalisation for Woolf’s own mind, with its utter disinterest in politics, history, society, and its endlessly narcissistic obsession with the beauty of its own perceptions, enabled by a small world of servants and lackeys, the butler, the footman, the maid, the cook, the cleaner, the gardener and so on.

It is hard not to read it as Woolf defending her upper middle-class privilege, and justifying her ‘technique’, her entire fictional strategy, which is to gift everything she sees with special value and significance, and to absorb it into the endless flow of her writing.

So here we are at Kew, and I will show you to-day (the second of March) under the plum tree, a grape hyacinth, and a crocus, and a bud, too, on the almond tree; so that to walk there is to be thinking of bulbs, hairy and red, thrust into the earth in October; flowering now; and to be dreaming of more than can rightly be said, and to be taking from its case a cigarette or cigar even, and to be flinging a cloak under (as the rhyme requires) an oak, and there to sit, waiting the kingfisher, which, it is said, was seen once to cross in the evening from bank to bank.

One thing, then another thing, then another, each bright as jewels in the sun, a stream of images washed clean of any thoughts.

Orlando has a baby, a boy though we are given no details or emotion, not a dicky bird about how it feels to either give birth, or the emotions of being a mother. Maybe this is because Woolf never had heterosexual sex and, of course, never had a child. No point attempting a subject area she knows nothing whatsoever about.

There follows an enjoyable sequence of science fiction-like intensity which depicts the passage of the years noticeably speeding up. It happens as Orlando is looking out the window of her Park Lane house and sees a carriage not drawn by horses i.e. a new petrol omnibus. Then she sees the new king draw up, Edward VII. Then she looks again and notices how thin ladies have become, the flapper. And electric lights: now you can see into everybody’s rooms as dusk falls and privacy has been abolished. Men have shed their Victorian whiskers and become clean shaven. Families are tiny.

The speeded-up vividness of this is as good as the long passage about damp setting the tone for the entire Victorian era. They are the two best things in the book.

1928

Then the clock in the room chimes and it is the present day, 11 October 1928! (p.195) Orlando runs outside, jumps into her little car, presses the self-starter, and off she zooms down Park Lane, shouting abuse at drivers who don’t indicate or people who step into the road without looking, till she parks outside her favourite department store, Marshall & Snelgrove’s, and bustles in with a long list of shopping. Here again Woolf celebrates her heroine’s superior ignorance, just as she celebrated Mrs Dalloway’s ignorance and Mrs Ramsay’s vagueness.

In the eighteenth century we knew how everything was done; but here I rise through the air; I listen to voices in America; I see men flying – but how it’s done I can’t even begin to wonder. So my belief in magic returns. (p.196)

She has become Clarissa Dalloway. She has become a lady who lunches. She is 36 (p.198). With her shopping done, she jumps back into her car and hurries off, driving across Westminster Bridge to the Old Kent Road, along it and out into the countryside.

Fragmentation of the self

There follows a very quotable passage about how all of us contain scores of ‘selves’, 60, 70 ‘selves’, associated with all manner of memories, perceptions, neural networks. It’s a stretch to ever say ‘I’. Which ‘I’?

How many different people are there not – Heaven help us – all having lodgment at one time or another in the human spirit?… Come, come! I’m sick to death of this particular self. I want another. Hence, the astonishing changes we see in our friends…These selves of which we are built up, one on top of another, as plates are piled on a waiter’s hand, have attachments elsewhere, sympathies, little constitutions and rights of their own, call them what you will (and for many of these things there is no name) so that one will only come if it is raining, another in a room with green curtains, another when Mrs Jones is not there, another if you can promise it a glass of wine–and so on; for everybody can multiply from his own experience the different terms which his different selves have made with him… (p.201)

Fragmentation of the self, a very modernist trope.

And then there’s an even more quotable passage, a page and a half long, in which Woolf records the internal monologue of Orlando as a dozen or more selves and voices compete with each other, interrupting each other’s thoughts and sentences, competing to be the dominant voice.

Reading this it’s impossible not to remember that its author suffered all her life from severe mental illness which is nowadays diagnosed as bipolar disease. This thought unavoidably dominated my response to the extended passage about the voices squabbling in her head. It is in this hallucinatory state that Orlando walks into the huge park of her beloved country mansion.

And not just the voices in her head, but even the objects in the outside world begin to morph into each other. Everything becomes everything else.

The ferny path up the hill along which she was walking became not entirely a path, but partly the Serpentine; the hawthorn bushes were partly ladies and gentlemen sitting with card-cases and gold-mounted canes; the sheep were partly tall Mayfair houses; everything was partly something else, as if her mind had become a forest with glades branching here and there; things came nearer, and further, and mingled and separated and made the strangest alliances and combinations in an incessant chequer of light and shade. (p.212)

Is this art or madness? Or the artful incorporation of the perceptions of mental illness into narrative form? Does it matter? Is the best response just to go with it?

The last six or seven pages are a long description of Orlando walking through the rooms of her country mansion and all the commentaries tell us that the mansion is identical with Knole, the massive stately home of Vita Sackville-West, Woolf’s lesbian lover who the whole book was inspired by and is dedicated to. So it ends up being a tribute to her lover’s house.

The final long rhapsodic passage also recapitulates many of the memories and moments from throughout the narrative, a pretty stock manoeuvre and, as such, it’s hard to resist its sentimental appeal. Endings are always sad. Most of the way through I hated this book but couldn’t help being moved by the lyrical ending.

Servants

Pretty bored with the endless witterings about love of the main protagonist, I kept myself amused by collecting the names of the servants. I have absolutely no doubt that if I had lived in any of these historical eras, I would not have been a fine lord or lady in smart clothes with a vast unearned income – as most readers of historical fiction and watchers of costume dramas fancy they would have been. No, I’m confident I would have been the lowliest servant at everyone’s beck and call, and so I always sympathise with the often unnamed and always taken-for-granted servants in these bourgeois novels. This one features:

Mrs Grimsditch, the housekeeper

Mr Dupper, the chaplain

Mrs Stewkley

Mrs Field

Old Nurse Carpenter

The little laundry maids and scullery maids, the Judys and the Faiths

The Blackamoor whom they called Grace Robinson by way of making a Christian woman of her

Basket, the butler

Bartholomew, the housekeeper

Louise the housekeeper who spots the holes in the sheets of the royal bed which sends Orlando off to Marshall & Snelgrove’s

The shop assistant at Marshall & Snelgrove’s

Stubbs the gardener

Joe Stubbs the carpenter

Basket the butler has the best name. He sounds like a far more interesting character than the boring null Orlando.

Thoughts

Lacking any psychological depth, any attempt at narrative realism, any historical or political content, it is as an entertainment that ‘Orlando’ must be judged, and on this criterion it utterly fails. For long stretches it is very tiresome indeed. There is no plot to speak of, and few if any insights into anything. Instead you feel like you are drowning in a sea of third-rate pastiche of English prose of its respective eras, and pointless verbiage. All that talk about love and poetry and not a single insight or line worth remembering.

I liked the two passages about damp in the nineteenth century and the speeded-up scene in Park Lane, they had real juice. And then only at the very end, in the passages about multiple selves, did the book really feel like it has anything to say about anything, about the fragmentation of the self which may or may not be a distinctive aspect of modern life, and also hovered between being an artful expression of the modernist sensibility or symptoms of severe mental illness. It’s about the only piece of meat to actually chew on.

Everyone should read ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’ which are masterpieces of the form. I’d  advise you to cross the road to avoid reading this box of tripe.


Credit

‘Orlando: A Biography by Virginia Woolf’ by Virginia Woolf was first published by the Hogarth Press in 1928. Page references are to the 2004 Vintage paperback edition, although the text is easily available online.

Related links

Related reviews

The Master Builder by Henrik Ibsen (1892)

Act 1

The Master Builder in question is Halvard Solness. For years he worked for Knut Brovik but then the tables were turned, Brovik went bankrupt while Solness struck out on his own and established his own thriving business, hiring Brovik, and his son Ragnar, to come and work for him. So Solness is now a vigorous successful man of 40 or so while Brovik is now old and ill and bitter. The play opens with Knut and Ragnar working in Solness’s office and grumblingly revealing all this backstory. Off to one side works pretty young Kaja Fosli, who is Knut’s niece and engaged to Ragnar.

The play opens with Solness returning to the office and confronting Knut who is unhappy. In particular he wants to see his son, Ragnar, get a commission of his own and prove his worth as an architect while Solness is reluctant to let him leave. The crux of the argument is that a young couple have come to Solness asking him to build them a home. Solness in front of Knut and Ragnar dismisses the commission but when Knut then asks if his son can take it up, and mentions that Ragnar has already shown the couple some sketches, Solness reverses his position and says Ragnar can’t do it, he’ll do it.

In the middle of the argument Solness broaches the theme which is to become central to the play, namely his anxiety that a new, younger generation is knocking on the door. Solness worries that he will be forced to get out of the way, make way for younger men (p.272).

Kaja

Back in the main office Knut says he feels ill so Ragnar helps his ailing dad go home. Left by themselves Solness and Kaja reveal that they are in love. Or more precisely, young Kaja is absolutely besotted with the older man. Through slips in his dialogue, Ibsen conveys the sense that Solness is going along with her infatuation, playing up to it (‘I can’t do without you’), but chiefly because he wants Ragnar to stay in his office, and where Kaja is, there Ragnar (her official fiancé) will remain (p.276).

Like most older literature, it’s impossible to imagine modern people behaving like this. The manipulation, yes, but the idea that Ragnar and Kaja have been engaged for five years and Ragnar hasn’t noticed that his beloved is besotted with another man – and that other man is his boss – is implausible.

Anyway, three more characters have to be introduced before we have the full set and the game can begin. First to enter is Solness’s wife, a faded beauty, a tired woman named Aline. We quickly realise that she is alert to whatever’s going on between her husband and his pretty secretary, and that – after she’s popped into the room briefly to say that Dr Herder has called round then leaves – we learn that Kaja, with that woman’s sense, knows that Aline knows and is tortured with anxiety and shame. Solness tries to reassure her and packs her off home.

Dr Herder

Dr Herder is introduced and the women leave the two men alone. In a tactful way Herder tells Solness his wife suspects he’s having an affair and asks if she is justified. Solness replies that his wife’s jealousy is not unjustified but not in the way she thinks. Yes Solness is playing up to Kaja but (our suspicions are confirmed) he’s only doing so to keep Ragnar in his practice, for the young man is extremely talented and useful.

But Solness goes beyond this simple piece of manipulation to tell the doctor something more. When Kaja first presented herself at the practice wanting something or other, as soon as she explained her relationship with Ragnar, Solness saw his opportunity and wished very strongly that she would apply for a job. But he didn’t say it out loud, just wished hard. The funny thing is that she turned up the next morning ready to start work as if he’d offered her the job and yet he never had. Solness himself is puzzled. It’s as if his unspoken wishes made it happen…

Dr Herder is a rational soul and thinks all this is poppycock. Returning to the main point he asks Solness why he hasn’t explained all this to his wife. Once it was explained she’d understand. And again, Solness gives an unexpectedly perverse or spiritual answer. He doesn’t explain the real situation to his wife because he enjoys her being suspicious and jealous of him. He enjoys ‘the mortification of letting Aline do him an injustice’ (p.282).

Again the doctor doesn’t understand him but Solness sweeps on, anyway, to declare that the real problem isn’t that his wife thinks he’s unfaithful, it’s that she thinks he’s mad. And sometimes Solness agrees. Everyone (including the doctor) thinks he’s rich and successful and yet inside he’s consumed with anxiety amounting to fear. he is terrified of being swept away in the deluge of the rising generation.

SOLNESS: The turn is coming. I sense it. I can feel it getting nearer. Somebody or other is going to demand: Make way for me! And then all the others will come storming up, threatening and shouting: Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Yes, just you watch, doctor! One of these days youth is going to come here beating on the door… (p.285)

Hilde

At the height of this slightly unhinged soliloquy there’s a knock on the door and the final character enters, Hilde Wangel. She’s dressed in hiking clothes and 23 and full of life and confidence. Herder remembers that he and Solness met her amid a group of hiking ladies earlier in the summer. Now she’s come back to town on her own, with nothing but the clothes she’s standing in and a hiking pack. Rather presumptuously she asks if she can stay the night and Solness, impressed by her forthrightness, says yes and calls his wife to fix up one of the spare rooms (in fact they have three unused nursery rooms) for her.

The doctor leaves Hilde and Solness alone. First she captivates him with her insouciance – she doesn’t have any money or any plans but laughs at his offer that she come and work for him (‘not likely!’). But then she reminds him that ten years earlier, when he was in his 30s and she was just 13, he had supervised the repair of the church tower in her home town of Lysanger. Once it was completed they held a ceremony, the whole town turned out in formal dress for speeches and so on, Hilde and the other schoolgirls were wearing white dresses, and at the peak Solness climbed to the top of the scaffolding and placed a wreath on the weathercock.

Then there was a big dinner at the town club and then Solness was invited round to Hilde’s father’s house for drinks. And how when he arrived she was the only one in the reception room. And now, she reminds him, he was very kind and said that she looked like a little princess, and how she said your princess, and how Solness played along and said, yes, in ten years time he would return and sweep her off to some exciting foreign land like Spain, carry her off like a troll and make her his princess. And then, Solness claims to have completely forgotten but Hilde now reminds him, that he kissed her. Took her in his arms and bent her backwards and kissed her, several times.

At first Solness angrily denies it while Hilde stands sullenly still and silent but then, in a strange way, he talks himself into believing it, and then asserting it. And what happened next…? Nothing happened next. All the other guests came rushing into the room and that was that, Hilde says grumpily.

But now she reminds him of something else he’s forgotten. The date all this happened was 19 September and today is 19 September. It’s exactly ten years to the day since he made his promise to return and carry her off to an exotic land (p.295). Playfully she raps the table and says, Time’s up! She’s here and she expects to be carried away to a magic kingdom!

A little more realistically she asks whether he’s built any more church towers recently and when he replies no, mostly people’s homes, she asks surely everyone should have towers on their houses and Solness admits that he’s most recently building a house for himself and, yes, it is going to have a tower, and they both rhapsodise for a moment about towers stretching up to the skies.

And we realise we’re not in an exactly realistic kind of play or fiction but in something which has crossed over, somehow, into a fairy tale.

And now, unrealistically, having established this memory-fairy bond between them, Solness shares with Hilde the deep fear he also shared with the doctor, his fear about Youth coming rampaging in and sweeping him away (p.299). This he explains, is why he’s locked himself away and barred the door (he must mean metaphorically, spiritually, because we’ve seen him freely coming and going).

All this is interrupted by first the doctor then Solness’s wife, Aline, entering to say she’s fixed up one of the bedrooms. Both the doctor and Aline are surprised at how intimate Solness and Hilde have become in their absence, signalled by the fact that Solness refers to her as the familiar Hilde, not the formal Miss Wangel which he ought to use seeing as they’ve only met half an hour ago.

But Solness explains to both that he met and knew her a few years ago. ‘Did you now?’ says Aline, raising her eyebrows. It’s clear that she sees Hilde as the latest in a succession of young women attracted to her husband. But Hilde in their last moments alone had asked Solness if she could find some use for her (presumably in his business) and when Solness enthusiastically replied Yes, she clapped her hands with delight. Some kind of pact or agreement has been signed between the anxious middle-aged man and this vivacious symbol of youth.

Act 2

Solness and Alvine alone together in the family home, revealing – no surprise – that they are both bitterly unhappy. We learned in an aside in Act 1 that her parents’ family home burned down 13 or so years ago and this turns out to have devastated Aline. I also think (it’s very elliptical) that either they had children who died young or were unable to have children, either way something about children is a sore point between them. With the result that they live in a house full of secrets and repressed unhappiness (‘The emptiness is dreadful.’)

Solness tries to persuade her that everything will be better once they move into the new house but Aline’s not having it. Nothing will change.

ALINE: Build as much as you will, Halvard – you can never build another home for me! (p.303)

In quick succession Solness reveals two things: he keeps harping on about being mad; but deeper than that, he is oppressed by a crushing sense of guilt towards Aline, even though he’s never knowingly done her any wrong.

Hilde

Into this miserable conversation walks Hilde who stayed last night. Aline is happy to break off the conversation in order to offer to go and buy for Hilde bits and bobs she’ll need. There’s just enough of an exchange between them for Aline to make it quite clear she’s sceptical about Solness’s claim that Hilde is a friend from way (back), using the same dry tone she uses when addressing Kaja. Plainly she thinks he likes to surround himself with adoring young women.

Left alone Hilde and Solness’s conversation is a strange mix of artless chat and intense confession. Hilde looks over the plans recently made by Ragnar which Solness has been reviewing but this leads into her intense declaration that only he, the Master Builder, should be allowed to build anything and, unexpectedly, Solness agrees and admits this is an opinion he has secretly nurtured.

To change the subject he points out the building in scaffolding across the way and Hilde notes the big tower. That’s the new house he’s built for them. And now he’s in confessional mode he tell Hilde (and the audience) the story of his children. Aline bore twin boys. But they were only three weeks old when the house burned down. Nobody was hurt in the fire but the shock and the cold air when she was rescued from the burning house gave Aline a fever. But she insisted on carrying on breast feeding the babies because it was her duty. And so she gave them the fever and they died…

And he points out to her the terrible paradox that, although the fire was the making of him – it allowed him to design and new buildings on the large plot of land freed up by the destruction of the old house and these homes made his reputation – the paradox is that his entire career is built on creating safe, secure homes for families when he, himself, can never again have a family, will never have children, will never know a child’s love.

And he is tortured by an immense guilt, the sense that the more successful he is an architect, the more he builds lovely homes for families, the more he and those around him, somehow, have to pay a price, the terrible thought:

SOLNESS: That all this I somehow have to make up for. Pay for. Not in money, but in human happiness. And not with my own happiness alone but with other people’s too. Don’t you see that, Hilde? That’s the price my status as an artist has cost me — and others. And every single day I have to stand by and watch this price being paid for me anew. Over and over again — endlessly! (p.316)

By now we can see why Solness has repeatedly described himself as mad; this terrible anxiety and guilt are a form of mental illness. And not only that, but he feels guilty that the loss of the boys deprived Aline if her vocation, which was to raise children.

Ragnar

All this angst is interrupted by Ragnar knocking and entering to tell Solness that his father, Knut, is very ill. Ragnar asks him if he can take the message back to his Dad that Solness rates and compliments his drawings. But Solness obstinately refuses to praise them and gets cross when Ragnar persists. Why doesn’t Solness just praise them and tell Ragnar to take the praise to his dying Father? Because he is blocked and obstinate.

Ragnar reluctantly leaves and Hilde tells Solness that was mean and cruel. Their conversation resumes its strange mood. Solness shares a secret, a kind of confession, he says the whole thing came down to a crack in one of the chimneys. He noticed it and meant to do something about it for ages but something held him back. Then he goes into a kind of visionary state to explain that he saw his house being burned down, he imagined it would happen one cold day while he and Aline were out for a ride and the others had banked up the fires ready for their return. He describes it so vividly that Hilde (and the audience) are led to believe this is the route of his guilt, that the fire which led to the death of his children and the ruin of his wife was somehow his fault.

And yet at the last minute he switches tack and says it wasn’t that at all. Turns out the fire started in a cupboard somewhere else, was in no way caused by the leak he didn’t fix. And yet so intensely had he wished for the fire that he is haunted by a sense of guilt he can’t assuage.

But he still hasn’t finished. He goes on to explain his conviction that in order to achieve anything a man needs helpers and servants and, moreover, they must come to him of their own volition. This is what he was trying to explain to Dr Herder who didn’t understand at all but Hilde does understand. She tells him that she felt some strange force or compulsion to come and see him (p.323). Yes, says Solness, we both have the troll inside us.

Floating just above the realm of realism, in the realm of poetic drama, Solness tells Hilde she is like a bird of the forest and she takes the metaphor and sees herself as a powerful bird of prey. Then he switches the image and says, no, she is like the dawn, she is the quality of Youth to which he is endlessly drawn (p.325).

This leads back to the drawings by Ragnar on the table and Solness confesses some more. He admits that Ragnar is a very talented architect and that, given half a chance, he will do to Solness what Solness did to h is father, namely smash him and leave him in the dust. Nonetheless, Hilde makes him come over and sit at the desk with the drawings on and insists that they write some nice comments for Ragnar to show his dying father.

But Solness can’t concentrate and asks Hilde why, if she was obsessed with him she never wrote to him. And why she never visited sooner. And what does she want from him? And she replies, simply, she wants the kingdom which he promised her.

Aline

Mrs Solness enters with various parcels saying she’s done the shopping for Hilde, who thanks her. but she asks her to call in Kaja from the office. Kaja enters very young and intimidated. Hilde gives her Ragnar’s architect’s drawings with Solness’s comments scribbled on them and tells her to run back to Ragnar’s house and give them to him to show his father in his dying hours…

But Kaja’s joy is brutally cut short, when in front of his wife and Hilde, Solness also tells Kaja to tell the Broviks that he has no further use for them, and that goes for her too. She is appalled. He has just fired all three of them. She creeps timidly out. Aline reprimands her husband for being so brutal but goes on, with her usual pointed manner, to say Solness will probably be able to replace her pretty easily…looking at Hilde.

Hilde is not intimidated and larkily says she’d be no use behind a desk, that’s not her style. Solness tells his wife to hurry up and pack their things ready to move into the new house. This very evening they’ll have the topping-off ceremony. And Hilde butts in to ask whether Solness will climb to the top of the tower to place a wreath at the top like he did with the church in her home town. Solness is inspired by the vision and wants to but Aline is horrified and reminds him he gets terrible vertigo, he can’t even bear to go out onto their first floor balcony, he gets dizzy, it would be an accident waiting to happen.

But so bewitched is Solness by Hilde that he says he’ll do it, regardless, anything for his Princess Hilde.

And so on to Act 3 with the audience totally expecting Solness to climb the tower and fall to his death. Will he, won’t he?

Act 3

The third and final act is set outside, on a verandah of their current home but with a view over to the new one, partly swathed in scaffolding. Aline is sunning herself. Hilde comes up onto the verandah bearing flowers from the garden. They get chatting with Hilde obviously buttering Aline up and gaining her confidence enough to talk about the famous fire which burned her family home. She makes the point that it’s the little things whose loss hurts the most, like the nine dollies she’d kept since her childhood.

Enter Dr Herdal, paying a visit. With the three of them there Hilde asks if he’ll be around that evening to watch Solness climb the tower, first the doctor’s heard of it. This triggers panic fear in Aline who begs Hilde to talk her husband out of it. Impulsively Hilde throws her arms round Aline’s neck in the way nobody now does (did they ever or is this a convention from a certain era?) Aline tells the doctor she’d like to talk to him about her husband and they exit.

Followed promptly by Solness entering. Hilde tells him point blank that she wants to leave. She talks openly about them having an affair which hadn’t been explicit before. She says it’s one thing taking the man from someone you don’t know but she’s come to know and like Mrs Solness (in the matter of about 2 days!) and so, no, can’t have an affair with him and wants to leave.

Surprisingly (or maybe not, given Ibsen’s track record of hysterical characters telling each other they can’t live without the other) Solness is devastated: ‘What will happen to me after you’re gone? What will I have left to live for?’ He says Aline is dead inside ‘And here I am, chained alive to this dead woman’ (p.338)

Hilde suddenly outbursts that this life is so stupid, their not daring to reach out and lay hands upon happiness just because someone is standing in the way (i.e. Mrs Solness). But just as quickly they start joking around. Hilde says again that she is like a great forest bird, and (Solness adds) swooping down on her prey, and then Hilde declares she knows what he will build next, it will be a castle! He promised her a kingdom and all kingdoms have castles, don’t they? And they push on further into this fantasy, she telling him he’ll build her the biggest tallest mightiest castle ever, high on a hill and with a ginormous tower. Caught up in her vision, Solness asks for more and she says he will go further, her Master Builder will build her castles in the air.

Ragnar

Enter Ragnar to puncture this vision. He’s brought the wreath, the workmen gave it to him to bring over. Solness says he’ll take charge of the wreath prompting Ragnar to mockingly ask whether he is going to climb to the top of the building. Angrily Solness tells him to go home to tend his father. Too late for that, Ragnar replies, he’s had a stroke and is unconscious. Kaja is tending him. Solness tells him, nonetheless, to push off and go be with his father, and exits, walking off the balcony and over to the other building, holding the wreath.

This gives Ragnar an opportunity to tell Hilde how bitterly angry he is with Solness, for ruining his father’s life, for holding him back and all of this just to…Hilde prompts him … just to be close to Kaja. Hilde’s suspicions that Solness was in a relationship with Kaja are confirmed but she refuses to believe it. Ragnar says Kaja has just recently admitted it, that the Master Builder owns her body and soul, that he controls her thoughts, that she can never be separated from him.

Hilde refuses to believe it and now tells Ragnar her interpretation, which is that Solness only kept Kaja on because doing so kept Ragnar tied to him, stuck in his office. Ragnar admits that has a certain logic and reveals just how much Solness is afraid of him. Hilde demurs. Ragnar says she doesn’t realise yet that the Master Builder’s entire character is based on fear.

Hilde demurs and says her Master Builder is fearless, and repeats her girlhood memory of watching him climb up the tower, brave and fearless. Yes, but that’s the one and only time he ever did it, Ragnar ripostes, he’ll never do it again…

Aline

Enter Aline who asks where Solness is and when the others tell her he’s gone off with the wreath she has a panic attack. She begs Ragnar to go and fetch him back, tell him they have important visitors and so Ragnar trots off.

At which point enter the doctor to tell her that she actually does have some visitors come to see her and also to ask after Solness. Aline and Hilde have a brief exchange wondering whether Solness actually is mad as he keeps telling everyone. Aline and the doctor exit and Solness reappears.

It’s just Solness and Hilde and he confesses something to her (something more, on top of all the other confessions the play’s been full of). This is that when the fire burned down the old house and led to the death of his children, he thought God was calling him to become a master of his craft, to deprive him of all distractions so he could dedicate his life to building churches to His glory.

But then he, Solness, did something impossible. A man terrified of heights and overcome by vertigo, he nonetheless managed to climb to the top of the church tower he’d built (as seen by Hilde, as described half a dozen times already) and when he was up there, he had a word with God. He told God that he intended to be free, to do as he pleased, that never again would he build churches for God but homes for people (p.349). Defiance! Resolution!

But…but then…but now he thinks it was all for nothing. The people he built for didn’t really value their homes, he doesn’t value his achievement. So will he give up building altogether? No, there is one more thing he plans to build and he revisits what they were talking about earlier – castles in the air and tells her he can only do it with her.

Not with anyone else, she asks waspishly. Not with a certain Kaja. Solness is annoyed and, instead of flat out denying it, or explaining he only buttered up Kaja to keep Ragnar, foolishly he makes it a point of principle. He says Hilde must just trust him on this, she must believe in him. She replies she’ll believe in him when she sees him at the top of the tower.

And so Ibsen has manipulated his material round to make this climbing-of-the-tower become a great test his young would-be lover forces Solness to carry out. The tower has become a symbol within the play, symbolising Solness’s determination and something to do with his commitment to Hilde and starting a new life. But towers are also a very ancient symbol, freighted with numerous meanings to do with height and power and achievement, not forgetting the close to God element Solness made explicit in his colloquy with the Creator.

Solness pledges that he will not only climb to the top of the tower but, once there, he will have another conversation with God and this time he will assert his totalm freedom and independence:

SOLNESS: I shall say to him: Hear me, Great and Mighty Lord! Judge me as you will. But henceforth I shall build one thing only, quite the loveliest thing in the whole world…
HILDE: Yes…yes…yes!
SOLNESS: …Build it together with the princess I love…
HILDE: Yes, tell Him that! Tell Him that!
SOLNESS: Yes. And then I shall say to Him: And now I go down to take her in my arms and kiss her…
HILDE:…Many times! Say that!

Long story short: Solness dies. There’s a grand build-up, all the other characters arrive on the balcony (Mrs Solness, Hilde, Ragnar, Dr Heldar) plus some miscellaneous ladies while the set is arranged in such a way that we can see some of the crowd gathering in front of the house.

Mrs Solness is terrified and tells Solness not to do it but he reassures her that he’s just going down among his workmen. There’s an exchange between Ragnar and Hilde where he gives full vent to his frustration. Mrs Solness said how pleased she was that so many of her husband’s old apprentices had turned out to watch, but Ragnar explains it’s because Solness kept them all down, controlled them, cramped their careers, and so they all want to see him fail.

Although lots of other people ooh and aah, the core of the scene is the effect on Hilde. She watches, as in a trance, in a vision, her Master Builder clambers his way to the top of the scaffold where he does, indeed, place the wreath. And then there’s a pause which, as she explains to Ragnar, is Solness talking to God. At last, at last, she sees him ‘great and free‘. She hears a song in the air.

Then they all see Solness plummet to his death amid a wreck of scaffold and planking. But even after someone’s shouted up from the crowd that he’s definitely dead, Hilde still hears and sees the afterwaves of her vision.

HILDE: [with a kind of quiet, bewildered triumph]: But he got right to the top. And I heard harps in the air. [Waves the shawl upwards and shouts with a wild intensity.] My…my…master builder! (p.355)

Comments

Old literature is strange, that’s why I like it. It follows the rules of genres we no longer know, is influenced by the works of colleagues and contemporaries who we’ve forgotten, but most importantly, shows people behaving (we think) according to the social conventions and values of their day, many of which are so remote from us as to come from another planet. The text, the plot, the dialogue veer in and out of comprehension like someone looking through a microscope and fiddling with the focus. Sometimes it’s small details of social convention or behaviour which we find odd but often it’s major plot developments and sometimes the entire conception.

So my response to all the Ibsen plays has been very varied, thrilled, appalled, galvanised, puzzled, disappointed.

To start with the disappointment, it’s striking that three of these four plays end with the dramatic death (or mental collapse) of the protagonist: I associate this kind of melodrama with Chekhov and not in a good way.

Critics refer to the symbolism of the plays. Having just written a note about symbolism I don’t think this is quite the right concept; it’s more that the plays start with strictly plausible realism but then slowly transcend it in order to show us the characters’ psyches; and that these psyches are complex and over-wrought.

But reading these seven Ibsen plays I found the power of the conception, and the power of the conception of the central characters, steamrollers through doubts about verisimilitude, overwhelms quibbles about plausibility. They appear realistic in every detail and yet Ibsen’s plays feel like they take you to the heart of the burning furnace of human nature.


Related links

Ibsen reviews

Drama reviews

  • Play reviews

Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen (1890)

‘Oh I just stand here and shoot into the blue…’
(The insouciant, impulsive and aloof Hedda Gabler, p.199)

‘Hedda Gabler’ is significantly longer than ‘The Doll’s House’ and ‘Ghosts/The Revenants’, four acts instead of three.

Hedda (29) is a brilliant character, an attractive, wilful woman who likes twisting men round her little finger, bored bored bored with the married life she finds herself in, given to sudden unpredictable whims.

She’s the daughter of local notable, General Gabler, who spoiled his little girl. After flirting with most of the eligible men in town she eventually got tired, began to realise her carefree days were over, and let herself be wooed and won by bumbling, naive academic, Jørgen Tesman, partly because it looked like he was about to get an academic position i.e a regular income which would fund her dream lifestyle, but also because he was ‘so pathetically eager to be allowed to support me’ (p.203).

Act 1

The play opens with Tesman and Hedda arriving ‘home’ after a 6-month honeymoon. Sounds great but only a little into the play Hedda confesses to a friend that she was bored off her face the whole time, stuck in small cabins and hotel rooms with an academic whose idea of a good time was visiting local historical archives day after day (p.201).

The ‘happy couple’ are welcomed home by Tesman’s Aunt Julia (his mother and father both being dead) who dotes on Tesman (the only son of her sainted brother Joachim), and by the old family retainer, Berte, who nursed Tesman as a boy.

The house they arrive at has, in fact, only recently been purchased for them while they were away. Tesman and Hedda used to walk past it on the way back from various parties and, for something to fill the boring silence, she told Tesman how much she would like to live there (p.207). Like everything else she says, we later learn she didn’t mean it and in fact loathes it, thinks it smells.

The arrival home scene allows Aunt Julia to share with the audience several bits of backstory. First, the house they’ve bought (and the entire play is set in) used to belong to a Lady Falk. It was purchased by her and her invalid sister, Auntie Rina taking out a mortgage on their annuity. Tesman, the simple honest mug, is overcome with gratitude to them while Hedda couldn’t give a stuff. And all the financials were arranged by family friend, Mr Brack, aged 45.

Lastly, we learn that the reason Tesman was rummaging about in all these archives abroad was to borrow the sources he needs to write his Big Book, on ‘the domestic crafts of medieval Brabant’. Aunt Julia and Berte are everso impressed, Hedda can barely stifle her yawns.

When the aunt and servant agree that Hedda has brought an awful lot of boxes back with her, I thought it might be another story about a spendthrift women like Nora Helmer but although her extravagant dreams are part of her character they’re far from being all of it and the play develops into something entirely different. Hedda is the spider at the centre of a web she’s helped to spin to entrap three men, each of them thinking she loves them, or at least has a special relationship with them.

The play suggests there are two kinds of people: the naive and simple souls who live on the surface of things, who believe in society’s values and morality, and the cynics and manipulators who have seen right through the social conventions to a layer of reality beneath, and act and speak to each other accordingly.

Enter Mrs Thea Elvsted. She is a slight, scared woman. She lives in a house outside of town (on a hill, I think). Hedda intimidates and scares Thea who she used to bully at school – on one famous occasion Hedda threatened to burn young Thea’s hair off.

Now a complicated picture emerges: Thea went up to live at the house on the hill to act as housekeeper for Mr Elvsted some five years ago. Elvsted’s first wife was very poorly and in due course died. In the way of these things, Elvsted then proposed to his housekeeper and Thea married him. Now, in dialogue with Hedda, it emerges that it’s been an empty marriage. Mr E is 20 years older than Thea and they have nothing in common. In fact, Thea reveals that she has run away from her husband, for good.

But there’s more. For the last three years a man named Ejlert Lövborg has been lodging up at Elvert’s. Lövborg was a notorious drunk and ne’er-do-well but after a number of shameful events, he made an effort to reform and ended up boarding at Elvsted’s. Here he has recovered his vocation as a gifted historian and has been working for those three years to write a history book which has just been published to good reviews. Thea was closely involved in helping him write the book and, since her husband was often away (carrying out his duties as the regional administrator), Thea fell in love with the charismatic Lövborg.

Now enters Mr Brack who helped them buy the house, and who tells Hedda and Tesman that Lövborg is a serious rival for the professorship which Tesman had been counting on winning. In other words, Tesman got married and bought the house and borrowed large sums of money on the virtual assurance of the professorship and all this is now thrown into jeopardy. Brack exists, leaving the ‘happy’ couple to process this disastrous news, Tesman trying to be upbeat, Hedda now seeing that she’ll never have the footman and the horse and the social life she was looking forward to but instead will be condemned to a life of unspeakable boredom.

Act 2

A few hours later the Telsman household is visited by Mr Brack. He enters in an unorthodox way by coming up through the garden but he is greeted in an even more unorthodox way because Hedda is standing at the French windows randomly firing off the pistols she inherited from her father (the General) (p.199).

First of all there’s a scene with just Hedda and Brack in which he makes it clear that he has a soft spot for her and she agrees they are in a sort of triangular relationship, the third one being her husband. Every time Tesman steps out of the room Hedda and Brack they start talking about being in a love triangle (Tesman being the third). But in fact we are soon to learn Hedda is at the centre of a triangle whose three points are her dim husband, the predatory operator Brack and her earnest old flame Lövborg.

This is the scene where Hedda explains to Brack how she married Telsman out of boredom, how she lied about liking Lady Falk’s house, but how excruciatingly dull she finds him and his historical researches; in which she says:

I’ve often thought there’s only one thing in the world I’m any good at…Boring myself to death.’ (p.209)

So, less than halfway through the play we have a lot of complicated relationships, histories and cross-currents. The succeeding acts and scenes work through the consequences of all this.

Next thing to happen is that Lövborg himself arrives, entering the scene with Hedda and Brack. He tells them he is a reformed character and also about his next book which is going to be much better than the one just published: it’s going to be about ‘the future course of civilisation’ (p.212). He has brought the manuscript of the book along with a view to maybe reading some excerpts to Tesman.

He also announces that he has no intention of competing against Tesman for the professorship, to the latter’s great relief.

Brack announces that he is holding a bachelor party that evening. Tesman is coming and he invites Lövborg. The latter declines saying he is a reformed character and doesn’t want to be tempted.

Brack and Tesman go into the back room for a little cold punch to prepare for the evening ahead and this leaves Lövborg and Hedda alone for the former to marvel that she’s married such a nincompoop, to remember the days of their (sexless) affair when he used to call round the General’s house. Hedda reveals to Lövborg that she never considered herself ‘in love’ with him; what she saw in him was his stories about a world of debauchery – he was a gateway into a world which she, as a young woman, wasn’t even meant to know about.

Although Hedda indulges this talk it’s only up to a point: as with Brack she is firm that she is not flirting and not going to be unfaithful – ‘No kind of unfaithfulness, I’ll have none of that’ (p.217).

But then she broke it off, she ended their friendship. Why? Because there was danger that talk of debauchery might lead into action. And now we learn that the breakup escalated into an argument during which Hedda got out one of her father (the General)’s pistols and waved it at Lövborg. Lövborg had told the story of the pistols a few times while staying up the hill at Elvsted’s but never named the woman in question and Mrs Elvstead assumed it was a well-known red-haired sex worker in town who Lövborg had a relationship with in his debauched days.

Mrs Elvstead arrives and Hedda tells Lövborg that she’s run away from her husband. Although Mrs Elvstead is a mousey timid figure, Hedda is actually profoundly jealous of her because of her courage (‘Oh if only you knew how destitute I am and you’re allowed to be so rich’, p.227). The word courage is repeated like a motif.

HEDDA: Oh courage, if only one had that…Then life might be liveable, in spite of everything. (p.221)

For her amoral enjoyment of the power, and because she is bored beyond belief, Hedda now takes malicious pleasure in telling Lövborg what Mrs Elvsted, at their earlier meeting, was terrified that Lövborg would start drinking again. Thea is horrified that Hedda has revealed this and Lövborg is upset that she has so little faith in him. Stung, he fills the glass he has up till now left empty and drains it in one. Thea is horrified (p.223).

At this point Brack and Tesman re-enter. Brack renews his invitation to his bachelor party. Earlier Lövborg had refused their kind invitation and said he’d remain her with the two ladies (Hedda and Mrs E) but now he changes his mind and says he will go with them after all. This decision sets in motion the wheels of tragedy.

Hedda and Mrs E say they’ll wait up till Lövborg returns from their drinks and escorts Mrs E to her lodgings (the ones she’s moved into after leaving her husband). After the menfolk exit to their party, the two women are left alone and Hedda explains that, ‘For once in my life I want to feel that I control a human destiny’ (p.226).

In a confused kind of way she imagines that Lövborg will master himself, control himself, and return to them with, as she keeps saying in an oddly haunting phrase, ‘with ‘vine leaves in his hair’ (p.227)

Act 3

Hedda and Thea wake up having fallen asleep on the sofa and chair respectively, to discover that it’s nearly dawn and the menfolk never returned from the party. Thea is petrified that her beloved Lövborg has fallen off the wagon.

Tesman reels in and tells Hedda what happened i.e. they stayed up all night drinking before staggering off to some bar. He tells her that Lövborg’s book is a masterpiece. Then he tells her that in their drunken staggering round town Lövborg dropped his manuscript. Following a bit behind Tesman found it, picked it up and decided not to return it to Lövborg when he was in such a state.

Now two things happen. A letter had arrived a little earlier for Tesman and it’s from Aunt Julle telling him that Aunt Rine is at death’s door. He reads it and decides he has to go straightaway. He’s just getting ready to go out when Brack arrives. In the kerfuffle Hedda takes the famous manuscripts and hides it in her husband’s desk.

Brack tells Hedda about the part of the evening’s shenanigans Tesman doesn’t know about. This is that Lövborg went onto the house of the red-haired demi-monde Mademoiselle Diana. Here he got into a fight because he drunkenly accused them of stealing his manuscript. the police were called and Lövborg was foolish enough to assault some of them. So he’s now in a cell awaiting trial. He has fallen right back to where he came from. he will be persona non grata all over town including in Hedda’s house. Brack admits that this pleases him because he hadn’t wanted Lövborg to insert himself into what he still thinks of as his nice little triangle with Hedda. Hedda smiles: ‘So you want to be the only cock of the yard, is that it?’ With this understanding between them, Brack takes his leave.

And who should walk through the front door or rather force himself than Lövborg himself. Thea had been dozing in the back room and now comes through to greet him with relief. But Lövborg explains that all is lost, he’s been arrested, news of his drunkenness will be all over town etc etc.

But now he is cruel to Thea. She loves him but he announces that he has no more need for her. She was useful to him as amanuensis writing his book but now he has no further need for her. But her life will be empty without her! He brutally tells her she should go back to her husband but she angrily refuses.

Their relationship centred on the book which is a joint venture but now Lövborg lies and says that last night he tore it to pieces and threw it in the fjord. But it was like her child, Mrs Elvsted wails and then, distraught, puts her coat on and staggers out, not knowing where she’ll go.

Nonetheless, when Lövborg says that Thea has broken his courage and his resolve, Hedda is jealous again. It’s Thea who controlled the destiny of a man, not her. Once again the slighter woman has beaten her.

Left alone Lövborg explains that he didn’t destroy the manuscript (and we and Hedda know this) but said he did something worse – he lost it! He is just as distraught as Mrs Elvsted, in fact he rather melodramatically declares he’s just going to put an end to it all (p.245).

Continuing her barely comprehensible theme about wanting to have a significant part in a man’s destiny, and following on from her obsessive vision of Lövborg returning from the party with vine leaves in his hair – Hedda now picks up on his mood and his intention but tells him to do it beautifully.

And she goes to the drawer and gets out one of the pistols, which we’ve seen her brandishing earlier in the play. He recognises it as the one she waved at him when they broke up and miserably says she should have shot him then, all those years ago. To which Hedda is explicit:

HEDDA: Use it now.
LÖVBORG: [Puts the pistol in his breast pocket.] Thank you.
HEDDA: And beautifully, Ejlert Lövborg. Promise me that!

So Ejlert Lövborg leaves with suicide on his mind and Hedda’s gun in his pocket. You’d have thought that would be quite enough for one scene, wouldn’t you? But the act ends with another shocker. For, left by herself, Hedda goes to the desk, takes out Lövborg’s manuscript, opens the door of the stove, and one by one burns all the sheets of the manuscript. All the time muttering that she is burning Lövborg and Thea’s child, burning burning their child.

It reminds us of the memory of Hedda threatening to burn Thea’s hair when they were at school. But it is also disturbingly destructive but, like all fire, eerily compelling at the same time. At a moment like this Ibsen’s imagination, on the face of it entirely realistic, rises to another level of intensity, feels like it breaks through some kind of barrier into a deeper understanding of human nature.

Act 4

It’s the evening of the same day and Hedda is alone. Then Miss Tesman arrives, Jörgen’s aunt, with news of Aunt Rina’s death, soon joined by Jörgen himself. A couple of pages as they process the old lady’s death and Miss Tesman, for a moment, seems to be implying how lovely if she could move in with them and they could all be one family together…

Miss Tesman leaves and Hedda amazes Jörgen by telling him that she’s burnt Lövbor’s manuscript. He can’t understand why she would do such a fantastic thing but she explains she did it for him – it was he who said the book would outshine and outrank him, now it’s gone.

She also seems, I think, in a highly elliptical way, to tell him that she’s pregnant and so now more than ever they need to be sure of his career. Jörgen is delighted and fusses about telling Aunt Julia but Hedda is just disgusted. For a moment she gives way to her conviction that she has fallen into a ghastly farce, wailing that it’s kill her, it’ll kill her (p.251).

In the middle of all this excitement Mrs Elvsted arrives with disconcerting news from her lodgings. Everyone is talking about Lövborg being in some kind of accident. While they’re all wondering how to confirm these rumours enter Mr Brack looking very serious. At first Jörgen, in his simplicity, thinks it must be because he’s heard about his Aunt Rina.

But in fact Brack has come to tell everyone that Lövborg has shot himself and is in hospital. He is not expected to live. The three people he tells all have their different responses. Mrs Elvert is absolutely distraught, beside herself. Jörgen has the ordinary common sense reactions, Oh my goodness, what a terrible thing etc. But Hedda nearly gives away that she knew he intended to kill himself. When she first hears the news she involuntarily says, ‘So soon!’ When Brack says Lövborg shot himself in the chest, instead of being horrified she says, ‘Not the temple? Well, it’s nearly as good’ which puzzles the others though they only half hear her.

Clearly she wants Lövborg to live up to his promise and to die ‘beautifully’ in order to demonstrate that she has some influence over the destiny of others. Now she defiantly tells the others that she admires Lövborg because he had the courage to do something, to ‘settle accounts with himself’ (p.256).

They’re lamenting that his book will be lost forever when Mrs Elvsted surprises them by pulling out of her skirts a notebook. Turns out she kept all the notes for the book she worked on with Lövborg. Jörgen is inspired, partly feeling guilty at 1) taking the manuscript then 2) not handing it back and then 3) that his mad wife burned it – all this makes him tell Mrs Elvsted that they can work together to recreate the book. She is overjoyed as we saw how losing the book had left her bereft as if she’s lost a child. Jörgen for his part grandly announces that he will put his own work in hold while he recreates the great work of his colleague – saying so with a knowing look at Hedda as a rebuke for her action.

So Jörgen takes Mrs Elvsted into the inner room for them to arrange and start poring over the notes, the same inner room Brack and Jörgen had retired to in Act 2, a handy way of leaving the other characters to have a tete-a-tete. In this case it’s Hedda and Brack. Hedda is full of irrational joy that Lövborg lived up to his promise, saying how good it is to know that an act of courage is still possible in this world.

However, Brack swiftly disillusions her. It turns out that the account he’s just given is wrong in lots of ways. For a start Lövborg isn’t in hospital in a critical condition, he’s dead. Second, he didn’t shoot himself at his lodgings but at Mademoiselle Diana’s boudoir. He’d gone back to the scene of his drunken affray, rambling something which none of them understood about them stealing his child, but which the audience understands as a reference to his lost manuscript. Thirdly he wasn’t even shot in the chest, but in the belly.

At all this news Hedda slumps in her chair. So Lövborg’s death was neither noble nor beautiful but ignoble and ugly. Everything she hoped would be beautiful has turned into meanness and farce.

But things get worse. Brack lets Hedda know that he recognised the gun that killed Lövborg. It’s one of hers. There is a risk the police will trace it back to her and she will be taken to court as an accessory. Unless, that is…he keeps quiet. Unless, that is…she makes it worth his while to keep quiet.

HEDDA: And so I am in your power, Mr Brack. From now on I am at your mercy…No, that’s a thought I’ll never endure, never! (p.262)

Hedda goes up and goes over to where (rather improbsbly) Jörgen and Thea are hard at work over the manuscript. They have (conveniently) come out of the second room, claiming it was too dark to work there. So the final passage of Hedda and Brack’s dialogue had been carried out in whispers.

Now Hedda gets up and walks over to Jörgen and Thea. She strokes Thea’s hair in the patronising and possessive way she’s done throughout the play and asks them if they’re getting on. Thea says, yes, it’s almost like the way she used to sit with dear Lövborg. Hedda drily remarks that yes, she can see them developing much the same relationship.

Hedda says she’s feeling tired and her husband absent-mindedly tells her to go into the inner room and have a rest on the sofa. Hedda goes into the room but, on a last impulse, plays a mad piece of music on the piano. Jörgen immediately leaps up and goes and asks her to stop; think of poor Aunt Rina. And Lövborg. ‘And’, Hedda wearily replies, ‘all the rest of them.’

Clearly this was a last mad burst of freedom and self expression but Jörgen’s telling her to be quiet is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In fact there’s more straws. Tesman cheerfully tells Thea that he’ll get her installed in Aunt Julia’s newly vacant spare room, then he can come over every night and they can work together. There’s no hint of sex in this, Jörgen is too simple and too innocent. But Hedda hears him and calls from the inner room to ask what she’s meant to do left all alone night after night?

Jörgen in his innocence replies that no doubt Mr Brack will be all too happy to come round and keep her company and predatory Brack leans back in his armchair with a big grin and says, Oh yes, only too pleased to keep her company. The walls can hardly have closed in any tighter around Hedda. Her entire future looks like a hell of loneliness and exploitation.

There’s a pistol shot and the others run into the back room to discover that Hedda has shot herself (in the temple, a small but significant detail). Left with no power over others, reduced to a puppet and slave of other people’s wishes (her husband’s to devote himself to his books, Brack’s to blackmail her into God knows what compromises) Hedda asserts her agency one last time in the only way left to her, making for herself the ‘beautiful’ death Lövborg so signally failed to deliver.


Related links

Ibsen reviews

Play reviews

  • Play reviews

Rosmersholm by Henrik Ibsen (1886)

Another beautifully constructed, weighty play about family secrets and lies, involving politics, idealism and conservatism, but focusing more on the mysteries of character and psychology.

Cast

  • John Rosmer, of Rosmersholm, an ex-clergyman
  • Rebecca West, one of his household, originally engaged as a companion to Beata, the late Mrs Rosmer
  • Kroll, headmaster of the local grammar school, Rosmer’s brother-in-law i.e. brother of Beata
  • Ulrik Brendel, a drunken poet
  • Peter Mortensgaard, editor of the left-wing Searchlight newspaper
  • Mrs Helseth, Rosmer’s housekeeper

Act 1

John Rosmer, of Rosmersholm, is the latest representative of the Rosmer family who have been pillars of the community for centuries, ‘the foremost family in the district’, providing it with clergymen, military officers and other officials.

The play opens with Miss Rebecca West, who is his companion, and the housekeepers, Mrs Helseth, looking out the window waiting for Rosmer to return from a walk. He is taking the long way home while they spy another man, Mr Kroll, headmaster of the local grammar school, walking directly to the house.

He enters and in the ensuing dialogue with Rebecca we learn a huge amount. We learn that Rosmer was married to Kroll’s sister, Beata; that it was not a happy marriage; that Beata became unwell and Rebecca was hired to be a companion for her; that she managed this despite the opposition of her father, old Captain West, her crippled foster-father, who was very unpleasant until he, too, passed away; that Rebecca became Beata’s rock and stay as she experienced mental decline and breakdown; that one day 18 months ago Beata walked down to the bridge over the millpool and threw herself in, drowning; that Rebecca has been providing companionship to the widower Rosmer ever since, and tells Kroll she will stay as long as he (Rosmer) needs her.

In passing Kroll determines that Rebecca is 29 and Rosmer is 43. If he should ever want a new wife…but Rebecca tuts and says how can he think of such a thing!

But, leaving the unhappy past, we learn that Kroll has become involved in local politics, in a conflict between the Radicals and the Conservatives which has become so bitter that Kroll refers to it as a civil war.

Rosmer enters and says how relieved he is to see Kroll. He’s always regarded Kroll as a teacher and mentor and was upset that he hasn’t visited for a year. He and Rebecca thought there was some kind of breach.

Now the talk turns to politics. The Radicals have taken power, egged on by a radical newspaper called The Searchlight and edited by one Peter Mortensgaard. Kroll is dismayed that the cleverest boys at his school now read it and that its influence has penetrated into his own family, where his children read it and even his wife blames him for raising them too strictly.

We get an insight into the authoritarian mind when Kroll states that hitherto his family had been of one mind, a place where ‘obedience and order have always ruled’. He therefore sees the rise as the Radicals as the triumph of chaos and disorder. And he sees the current times (1885 or so) as uniquely ruinous and decadent.

KROLL: You have no conception of the state of affairs that is going on all over the country. Every single idea is turned upside down, or very nearly so. It will be a hard fight to get all the errors straightened out again.

And now we get to the reason for Kroll’s visit after such a long absence. Kroll tells Rosmer they want him to join them. It’s all very well living out in the sticks and carrying on historical researches (into family trees) but the world is going to hell and they need Rosmer’s support. He and his party have just recently bought the Country Times paper and now what they need is an editor. Will Rosmer edit it for them? Rosmer says he’s got no feel for politics and is the last man for the job. Kroll reluctantly accedes but then asks if they can use his name, will he lend the renowned Rosmer name to their cause.

As the conversation progresses Rebecca has been pressing Rosmer to say something and he’s refused but the conversation is interrupted by the arrival of Ulrik Brendel. The two men remember that this Brendel was a) Rosmer’s tutor when he was a boy and still has a soft spot for but b) a disreputable waster who Rosmer’s father drove from the house with a horsewhip.

Brendel is an impressive figure of a man though now down on his luck and dressed like a tramp. He speaks grandiloquently of the way he has reached a fork in the road, has many bold and exciting ideas which he has not yet committed to paper all the while experiencing the ‘mysterious bliss of creation’ and expecting the applause of the grateful masses. Presumably he’s intended to be the type of the ineffectual radical.

In a broadly comical scene he says he has no interest in material things but could they possibly loan him a dress shirt. And an overcoat. And some boots. And, say, two ten crown notes. And with much bowing and scraping he exits to continue on h is way into town.

And now Brendel is out of the way Rosmer can get back to what he was about to say which is that he has joined the other party. Well, not joined exactly, but he has thought long and hard and come out on the side of independence and freedom. He aspires to bring all sides in the dispute together in a spirit of democracy.

Kroll is appalled, saying his old friend is a renegade, lending his hand to the corrupting and perverting of this unhappy country. Rosmer calls it a work of liberation, of liberating the minds and purifying the wills of the people. Kroll calls it ‘poisoning our whole social life’ and dragging everyone down into the mud.

This is why, after much thought, he left the church and ceased to be a clergyman and now a ‘great world of truth and freedom’ has been revealed to him. In fact Kroll helped crystallise his decision. Rosmer has read the bitter, sarcastic, sneering articles Kroll has written and this made him realise the country is descending into civil war and anger. Rosmer sees it as his job to restore peace via democracy.

Kroll is disgusted and says he can’t remain in the house a moment longer. He predicts that Rosmer will come round, after all it is hard for a man to hold out by himself. But Rosmer replies he is not alone, there are two of them, just as Rebecca returns to the stage after seeing Brendel off.

Kroll notes this and makes some muttered remarks along the lines of ‘hah! Just as Beata said’ implying that Rosmer’s dead wife, Kroll’s sister, predicted Rosmer and Rebecca were becoming an item … And with that he sweeps out.

So Rosmer confirms that he has finally spilt the beans and taken his stand and gotten it off his chest and thanks Rebecca before saying he’ll turn in for the night. All of which he does in a brotherly way i.e. no declarations of love or kisses or anything. It’s clear that he regards them only as friends, something which will become important later on.

Act 2

This act, as a whole, depicts the wonderful, intricate and appalling entrapment of Rosmer in a number of webs and nets he never imagined. The sense of liberation and release he felt after telling Kroll about his new-found liberation is comprehensively trashed and turned into its opposite, angst-ridden guilt and apprehension.

So: Next morning Rosmer tells Rebecca he feels a huge relief getting the secret of his new allegiance off his chest, he slept like a baby and feels wonderfully light and optimistic. Rebecca disconcerts him by saying she sent Brendel on his way with a short hand-written message for him to give to Mortensgaard. Hmmm. It was done with the best intentions but links his name with both Brendel and Mortensgaard which he didn’t want to do…

To their surprise Kroll is paying them a visit bright and early. In an important detail, he is surprised to discover ‘Miss West’ walking round in her dressing gown and takes this for precisely the kind of disorderly overturning of conventions which is ruining society, in fact he will take it as an indication that Rosmer and Rebecca are living in a state of free love.

Next he informs Rosmer what Brendel got up to the night before, namely he pawned the greatcoat Rosmer lent him and spent all the money Rosmer gave him on booze, getting drunk and then rounding on his low drinking pals as a bunch of lowlife losers at which he was physically thrown out of the tavern. What this is really doing is showing how the Real World turns our best intentions astray. To put it another way, demonstrates how, no matter how pure your intentions, the world always twists and compromises them.

Next Kroll informs Rosmer that Miss West has been corresponding with the editor of The Searchlight. Rosmer knows about this because Rebecca just told him, but still Kroll makes it sound sinister. Also it hugely offends him because – key fact – Mortenson uses the pages of his paper, The Searchlight, to ceaselessly pillory and mock Kroll.

When Rosmer says Rebecca is a free woman and they both cherish their freedom, Kroll makes his next attack. This is the suggestion that Rebecca is deceiving him and he is the innocent dupe of her schemes.

To do this he backtracks a bit to discuss the mental state of the wife who committed suicide, Beata. Rosmer repeats that his wife had mental issues and cites two aspects: one was that she repeatedly had fits when she made sensual advances to him which he quite rightly rebuffed (reminding us that Rosmer is not a romantic revolutionary but a clergyman), second that they discovered she couldn’t bear children and she beat herself up about this, and the two factors helped undermine her reason and led her to suicide while mentally unbalanced.

Now Kroll delivers a killer blow: what if Beata wasn’t unhinged at all but had long suspected Rebecca and Rosmer were having a relationship, saw that she made him happy, knew that she could probably bear him children, and so did away with herself in complete lucidity of mind for Rosmer’s sake, to clear the way for him and Rebecca to marry, to make him happy!

And now Kroll drops his bombshell evidence: Before she killed herself, Beata came to see him – twice. First time Beata told Kroll that Rosmer was losing his faith, something Kroll found so fantastic that he didn’t believe her. Second time she told him to expect White Horses (the local legend associated with death) at Rosmershal and said: ‘I haven’t much time left because now Johannes must marry Rebecca.’ That was on the Thursday and on the Saturday she killed herself.

Kroll is implying Rosmer was having an affair with Rebecca, that Beata realised this and did away with herself to let them be together. Rosmer insists he and Rebecca are nothing but close friends.

Kroll moves on to make the point that, setting aside his own distaste for whatever setup Rosmer’s got going with Rebecca, he’s advising him not to publicise it: not to publicise that he’s apostasised from his faith. Rosmer replies that he wants to tell The Truth but Kroll warns it will have dire consequences for him.

KROLL: You have no idea of the fury of the storm which will break over your head.

Mortensgaard

To both of their surprise, the editor of the Searchlight newspaper, Peter Mortensgaard arrives. Kroll is incensed and says this confirms all his worst fears about Rosmer conspiring with the enemy, pauses just long enough to exchange insults with Mortensgaard, then storms out slamming the door.

Mortensgaard has come to confirm the rumour that Rosmer has joined the progressive party. If so this is big news, a man of his standing, and he’ll publish an article about it next day. Rosmer confirms that he has come down on the side of the radicals and has also abandoned, or been liberated from, his faith.

But Mortensgaard is not pleased to hear this. Rosmer’s entire value to the movement would be that he is Pastor Rosmer. If he’s also abandoned his faith he becomes just one more freethinker, in fact they have too many freethinkers in the movement, plus people will be upset about his apostasy. All things considered, he must hush it up.

Rosmer is, of course, appalled, because his whole idea was to live in truth. He criticises Mortensgaard for being cynical but Mortensgaard replies he has no choice. he is a ‘marked man’ and who marked him? It was Rosmer, back in his fully believing days, who excoriated Mortensgaard for his lapse and was instrumental in having him sacked from his position at the local school. Now Mortensgaard says the tables are turned – it may be Rosmer who becomes the marked man.

Does he understand how Kroll and his pals at Country Times will be after his blood. They will sniff out anything, any black mark, even the slightest transgression in order to drag his name into the mud.

Then Mortensgaard reveals that Rosmer’s wife, Beata, sent him a letter. In it she begged Mortensgaard to be forgiving of her husband, stating there were many people who wished him ill, saying that he was struggling with his faith, and ending by insisting that there was no impropriety going on at Rosmersholm, none at all.

To recap, Mortensgaard tells Rosmer to be very careful. If rumours do spread about his apostasy and his free love with Rebecca it will not only do Rosmer harm, of more concern to Mortensgaard is that it will damage the radical cause. And with that, he exits.

Rebecca

It transpires that Rebecca was hiding in the bedroom off the main room where these two dialogues (with Kroll and Mortensgaard) took place. She heard everything. Rosmer laments that their ‘pure and beautiful friendship’ which he thought he took so much care to hide is turning out to cause so much trouble.

Also he’s beginning to doubt whether Beata was indeed insane. Kroll and Mortensgaard’s accounts suggest she was very much in command of her wits. Rosmer now starts to pace up and down in an agony of guilt. Did Beata think they were having an affair? Did she notice how much they liked to be together, talking about the same books and so on? She must have gone about sick with jealousy and humiliation but bottling it all up.

This morning he felt so happy but now he feels like he is stifling under a crushing weight. He will never again know joy etc. He will always be nagged by this doubt that his wife knew everything and, in her wretchedness, killed herself.

Rebecca tries to cheer him up, reminds him he is a free man who wants to live the free life, his visions of going door to door spreading joy and enlightenment. At which he picks up the idea and says there is one way to blot out the past, by creating a bright present. Which is why he asks her to marry him. He thinks it will help him throw off the nightmare of the past and live ‘in freedom, in joy, in passion’.

Rebecca is ecstatic for about 30 seconds and then masters herself and says, no, she can never be his wife, never. And he must never ask her why! If he proposes again she will be forced to leave and will never come back! And she exits leaving Rosmer utterly confused.

Act 3

Morning of the next day. Mrs Helseth and Rebecca are chatting. We learn that Mortensgaard was dismissed from his post at the school because he made pregnant a married woman who was separated from her husband.

One thing leads to another and Mrs Helseth reveals it was she who took the letter Beata wrote to Mortensgaard. We witness, I think, Rebecca gently coercing Mrs Helseth to agree to the proposition that Beata was mad. She suggests it began when they learned she couldn’t have children. Rebecca comments it’s probably just as well the pastor didn’t have children what with all that crying, and Mrs Helseth points out the spooky fact that children at Rosmersholm never cry and, when they grow up, never laugh.

Enter Rosmer. He asks why Rebecca didn’t come into his bedroom to see him this morning nor brought the paper. This is unusual. She is being friendly but distant.

When he opens the Country Times it is to discover a torrent of abuse aimed at him and Rebecca. He puts it down in disgust and says this kind of thing will ruin mankind; it must be countered with a spirit of love and forgiveness.

But his thoughts now don’t roam far from guilt about Beata. He tells Rebecca that all their fine words about a pure and noble friendship between them, maybe they were fooling themselves, maybe they always were in love and Beata saw it more clearly than them and was so distraught she killed herself. Oh the guilt the guilt! When she reminds him he has a noble cause to fulfil, bringing love and forgiveness etc, he says no cause ever flourished if led by a guilty man. Tiring of this self-pity Rebecca gets his hat and stick and tells him to go for a big walk.

Once Rosmer is out of the way, Rebecca gets Mrs Helseth to let Kroll in. He has been waiting all this time to see her. There is another great revelation which rearranges our understanding of the play. Kroll reveals that he once had feelings for Rebecca, she once bewitched him – and he believes she led him on, she fooled him because all she wanted was an introduction to Rosmer, he was just a stepping stone to her getting the place there.

Rebecca counters that it was Beata who begged for Rebecca to come and be her companion, but Kroll says that’s because she (Rebecca) bewitched her, too, resulting in a kind of desperate infatuation. In a remarkably frank exchange she sits and listens while he accuses her of seeking her ends with cold calculation.

Kroll launches a new attack. He says all her (immoral calculating) behaviour can be traced to her background. And in particular the fact that she is a bastard born out of wedlock. Her mother died when she was a baby and she was taken into the household of Dr West but Kroll is at pains to explain that this is because she was West’s love child with her mother. She counters that Dr West didn’t come to town till after she was born but Kroll has been doing research and has discovered that West made a visit about the time Rebecca was conceived. She was his love child.

Kroll develops his attack. Why is she, an ’emancipated’ woman, so upset about the possibility of her illegitimacy? It just goes to prove one of his premises which is that emancipated ‘freethinkers’ just read fancy books full of big ideas but don’t really absorb them, don’t really change their values.

Kroll is saying all this because he can’t really believe the pastor has abandoned his faith. He can’t believe the scion of such a distinguished family has betrayed his values and his legacy. He thinks it is all book learning and Rosmer will revert.

Above all, Kroll tells Rebecca he must get Rosmer to legalise the relationship. They must be married or a world of fury will fall on Rosmer’s head: he will be hunted and exposed to ruthless attack.

At that moment she sees Rosmer returning from his walk. Kroll wants to skip out the back to avoid seeing his old friend but Rebecca begs and insists he stay. And when Rosmer walks in he is amazed to see Kroll here, especially after the vicious insults he read in that morning’s Country Times (Kroll says he had no part in writing them).

But Rebecca calmly takes control and tells the two men to sit down then she makes a dramatic confession. It was she who drove Beata to commit suicide. When she came down from the North of the country it felt like she was entering a new world of opportunities. She learned from Brendel that his old pupil the famous Johannes Rosmer was struggling with his faith, with new ideas, with intellectual emancipation. She was inspired to cleave to this man and go on a great journey of exploration together. She inveigled her way into the household by bewitching Beata, a weak personality, making the sickly woman utterly dependent on her. And she persuaded Johannes they were soul partners, intellectual mates. Then – and this is the bit that makes both men gasp – she slowly worked on Beata, step by step, using different arguments: the two main ones seem to have been that she was childless and therefore depriving the pastor of heirs; and the most shameful/intense one that Rebecca and Johannes’s relationship was becoming so intense that soon they… and she doesn’t even say it but I think the implication is that risked becoming lovers i.e. having sex.

In other words it was Rebecca’s constant chipping away at Beata’s confidence and morale which eventually pointed her the way to walk down to the millstream and throw herself in. Both the men are horrified. Kroll says, See Johannes? See the kind of woman you’re sharing your home and life with.

Horrified beyond any kind of response Rosmer simply asks whether Kroll is going into town and whether he may accompany him, then both men get up and exit without even looking at her. Rebecca stares out the window for a while and then asks Mrs Helseth to fetch the big trunk. She’s leaving and she will never return.

Act 4

It is the evening and all Rebecca’s bags are packed to go away. Rosmer is still in town. Act 4 opens with a brief dialogue between Rebecca and Mrs Helseth in which the latter declares she thinks it mean of the pastor to get Rebecca in the family way and force her to leave like this. On further questioning Mrs Helseth says she’s prepared to believe this of the pastor, who she’s known for years, ever since the accusations were printed about him in the Country Times. And what can you expect of a man who goes over to Mortensgaard’s side. In other words, she epitomises how easily swayed uneducated population is.

But then Rosmer returns. He is surprised to find Rebecca with her bags packed. She explains that she feels quite broken, all her hopes are crushed. Then Rosmer confesses that he met all his old friends at Kroll’s house and they persuaded him to give up his evangelising about freedom and whatnot. It’s not really him.

And he now thinks Rebecca used him. He was wax in her hands. She agrees that coming to Rosmersholm was part of a plan but then says something new. What wasn’t part of her plan was to find herself swept up in an overwhelming lust for Johannes, something she couldn’t control (obviously she doesn’t use the word ‘lust’, she says ‘wild uncontrollable passion’). It took control of her and it was this which drove her rivalry with Beata, which became ‘a fight to the death’.

What Rosmer doesn’t understand is why she’s leaving at precisely the moment when she has everything she wanted: her rival is out of the way and last night he proposed to her – why the devil did she turn him down?

Because once she was living with him as brother and sister or as very good friends, once he started confiding his thoughts and feelings in her, she found ‘that horrible, sensual passion’ fading away. But what followed was complicated. Because on the one hand she felt a great ennobling love, while at the other…a sense of powerlessness and helplessness which overcame her, weakened her, infected her. Suddenly she feels her compromised past as a barrier she can’t penetrate.

But then it’s Rosmer’s turn to tell her he just doesn’t believe a word she says any more. If only she could prove to him she loves him. Instead he is stricken with doubt and not just about her, about himself. If he gives up his dream of evangelising men for happiness, what does he have left? What is there worth living for?

At which point there’s a knock at the door. Surprisingly, it’s the rambling poet Brendel. He announces that he’s leaving town. he stood up to give a lecture and finally put into words the grand ideas he’s been harbouring for 25 years only to discover that…he had nothing to say, the cupboard was bare.

He asks Rosmer for a loan but then surprises him by saying a loan of any ideals he can spare a man now bereft of ideals or hope. As to Rosmer, he warns him against building any hope on Rebecca, this ‘enchanting little mermaid’, unless – and he goes into weird visionary mode – she chops off her little finger at the joint and then cuts off her ear! And with that he walks out into the night.

Rebecca is still determined to leave. Rosmer calls her to sit by him and explains that he has provided for her future. If he dies she is the legatee of his will. But, she says, you won’t die for a long time. Well, Rosmer hints at taking his own life. After all he has proved a complete failure, abandoning the traditions of his forebears, failing to have any heirs, and then abandoning the brave fight for freedom he crapped on about without even starting to take part in the battle. What a failure!

She rejects this, saying he has made at least one convert, her; he has raised and ennobled her above her sensual passion to a selfless love. He refuses to believe it. She says is there nothing, nothing I can do to convince you?

And this leads to the climax of the play when Rosmer says, If she really believes it, if she has the courage of her convictions, if she truly loves him, then… she will go the same way as Beata!

Rosmer (or Ibsen) twists it into a real challenge: If she kills herself she will prove herself as worthy as Beata, prove that she loves him, prove that such love exists and so reinspire him with the faith to re-undertake his mission, to bring nobility to the minds of men, faith in man’s power etc.

Then Rosmer falters and wonders what he’s said, but Rebecca is calm and focused. Yes, she will do it. She just asks that they drag the stream and bring up her body quickly.

Ibsen loads Rebecca with reasons to do it: to make amends for Beata, to atone for her crime; to prove she is as brave as Beata; to prove to Rosmer she loves him; to restore his faith in nobility; to save what is best in him; otherwise she will be like an anchor weighing him down; and a slave dragging behind herself a crippled existence.

He lays his hand on her head and says they are man and wife. There is no God, no institution has rights over them. They make their own rules and if they choose to be married, they are. He will go with her. He will go as far as her.

I thought he was probably going to watch her from the window walk down the path to the bridge etc but in fact Rosmer intones a lot of pious bunkum – ‘the husband shall go with his wife, as the wife with her husband…We go together, Rebecca, I go with you, you with me…For now we too are one’ – and they exit hand in hand.

Of course someone has to tell us what happens to Mrs Helseth, the housekeeper, conveniently enters at this point, looks around for them both, goes to the window, sees them in the middle of the bridge, leaning against the railing, and throwing themselves in, and screams.

And, interestingly enough, after all this tortuous talk about nobility and freedom and emancipation and so on, she sees events in a completely different light. In a more folk, uneducated way, she sees their double suicide as the revenge of Beata, ‘The dead woman has taken them’!

I don’t know if Ibsen intended it, but I love the idea that the previous four acts of fancy talk and high-falutin’ ideals all have the rug pulled from under them with the revelation that it has been a ghost story all along, and Beata is the unseen ghost who works via the foibles and frailties of the humans who let her die in order to get her macabre revenge!

James McFarlane’s introduction

In his introduction to the World’s Classics edition of the play James McFarlane makes interesting points. He says one of the sources of the play was the deep disappointment Ibsen felt on returning to Norway in 1885 after eleven years in exile. He wanted to settle in h is native land but was sickened and nauseated by what he found. Above all he loathed politicians and journalists of all stripes. Apparently in the notes for ‘The Wild Duck’ he said politicians and journalists would make excellent subjects for vivisectionists i.e. to be cut open while alive.

Hence the portrait of Kroll, a type of the tyrannical and sneering right-wing politician; but the equally negative portrait of Mortensgaard, willing to sacrifice principle for expediency. Hence his contempt for a figure like Brendel, a would-be poet, overflowing with fine sentiments who finds it impossible to put anything down on paper.

He gave a speech to a workers’ meeting in which he said democracy is only as good as the people in it; what was needed was a transformation of character, an ennobling of individuals, very much Rosmer’s prospectus.

The play shows how characters are changed and not for the better. Rosmer represents intellect, the academic personality, conservative by family and tradition, of great personal integrity; Rebecca represents sensual passion, advanced thinking, action and energy and ambition. To some extent they awaken or exchange these qualities in each other, Rosmer becoming roused for action to change society, while Rebecca finds her sensual drive being burned away by a more selfless love.

However, this doesn’t ennoble them as you might expect, but has a wholly negative effect. Rebecca comes to feel paralysed, infected with loss of willpower, while Rosmer’s dreams of social transformation collapse as he realises he’s really not the man for the job. Having abandoned their origins for new lives and then discovered their new lives simply don’t work for them, there’s only one way out.

Rosmersholm is a place which drains everyone of life, where the children never cry and the adults never laugh, where first the wife and then the husband and his lover are driven to suicide, a place where all ideals are drained and stifled and in this way, McFarlane suggests, it is a metaphor for the Norway which Ibsen so hated and despised.


Credit

I read ‘Rosmersholm’ in the 1960 translation by James McFarlane which was packaged up, along with his translations of ‘The Wild Duck’ and ‘An Enemy of the People’, into a World’s Classics paperback in 1988. I read the 2009 reprint.

Related links

Ibsen reviews

Drama reviews

  • Play reviews

The Wild Duck by Henrik Ibsen (1884)

‘Oh really! There’s no end to all these comings and goings!’
(Hjalmar Ekdal accurately summarising the busyness of an Ibsen play)

The backstory is carefully concealed and takes two acts to leak out but it is this: a generation ago Old Ekdal and Haakon Werle were in business together. Something happened whereby Old Ekdal was sent to prison, to do hard labour, and emerged a broken man, whereas Werle went on to become a business tycoon, managing a booming timber company. The play starts 20 or so years later and focuses on the sons of these two men, Hjalmar Ekdal, Old Ekdal’s son (who has become a photographer and lives in shabby poverty with his uneducated, former-serving girl wife Gina) – and rich old Werle’s son, Gregers Werle, who has grown up in a wealthy household but has a yen to improve the world. Feeling guilty for his unspecified role in Old Ekdal’s fate, Werle has given broken old Ekdel a sinecure of a job ‘copying’ papers which helps keep the Ekdal household afloat, but otherwise keeps him hidden away like a shameful secret…

Cast

  • Werle – merchant, factory owner and so on
  • Gregers Werle – his son
  • Mrs Sörby – Werle’s housekeeper who he plans to marry
  • Old Ekdal, broken, alcoholic fantasist
  • Hjalmar Ekdal – Old Ekdal’s son, a photographer
  • Gina Ekdal – Hjalmar’s wife
  • Hedvig – their daughter, 14 years old
  • Dr Relling – a doctor who lives downstairs from the Ekdals
  • Molvik – a former theology student who lives downstairs from the Ekdals
  • Graberg – book-keeper to Werle
  • Pettersen – servant to Werle
  • Jensen – hired waiter

Act 1

A grand dinner at Werle’s house which he is giving for his son, Gregers. The pair, father and son, don’t get on and only communicate via business letters. Werle is cross that Gregers invited his old schoolfriend Hjalmar because it took the number of guests to unlucky 13. We are introduced to two or three of the guests who are portrayed as fat and greedy (and named only as types – the bald guest, the fat guest, the short-sighted guest) although it is also repeated that they move in ‘Court circles’, strongly suggesting the ambience of wealth and influence which old Werle operates in.

The play starts in a studiedly indirect way: instead of going straight in with the main characters we are shown below-stairs chat between Werle’s servants, gossiping about the old man, about his reputation for being a lad when he was young and about the fate of Old Ekdal, hiw one-time business partner who ended up in prison.

The main events in Act 1 are:

1. Gregers talks to his old school-friend Hjalmar who he hasn’t seen for years and discovers that a) his training as a photographer was funded by Werle and b) Hjalmar married a former servant woman at the Werle house, Gina Hansen.

Interrupting this, Old Ekdal himself appears, he’s been working late with a colleague named Graberg the book-keeper and, the other gates being locked, the only way the pair can exit is via the living room where the grand party is happening. Old Ekdal’s appearance is like Banquo’s ghost, all the guests fall silent as he shuffles across the room and his own son, Hjalmar, turns to the fireplace in order to ignore him. Shame all round…once he’s gone conversation picks up and Mrs Sörby promises to play the piano to entertain the guests.

After interacting badly with the rich sophisticated guests (very pointedly he is made not to understand the idea that ‘vintage’ wines are older and more valued), Hjalmar makes his apologies and leaves. The other guests are being entertained by Werle’s housekeeper Mrs Sörby in the back room, which allows for:

2. A confrontation between Gregers and his father in which all kinds of things come out:

  • it was Werle who set Hjalmar up as a photographer, out of guilt at ruining his father
  • around the same time Werle fixed up for Hjalmar to marry the former maid Gina and this was because…
  • Gina was just the latest female servant Werle had been carrying on with, then tired off and so dismissed from his service, sent her home to live with her mother, but engineered her marriage to Hjalmar
  • Werle’s wife, Gregers’s mother, knew all about her husband’s infidelities and told Gregers

As to why Werle has given this whole party for his son, and invited so many outsiders, Werle says he wants to make Gregers a business opportunity, he wants to bring him into the family firm as a partner. But Gregers discerns the Machiavellian scheme beneath this – Werle is going to marry his housekeeper Mrs Sörby and so he set up this party because … he wanted to present a respectable face to the important people in his community – this is why the guests Gregers doesn’t know are at ‘his’ party, because it’s nothing to do with him, it’s to do with his father wanting to put on a show of happy father and son and, by implication, of his son happily accepting his (Werle’s) forthcoming marriage to Mrs Sörby. A tableau for public consumption.

Werle has, typically, used his son, as he always has, and as he always used and betrayed his mother. Gregers is beyond angry, he overflows with contempt for his father, who feels it.

In their final skirmishing Werle renews his offer of a partnership in the business but Gregers turns this down, revealing that he has just discovered a new purpose in life. The rest of the play reveal that this purpose is to save and redeem the much-abused Ekdel family…

Act 2

The setting switches to Hjalmar Ekdel’s photography studio, which is also the main room for Hjalmar and Gina. It’s the same evening as Werle’s dinner. Gina is sitting with their 14-year-old daughter Hedwig. Their conversation is designed to show how poor they are, not illiterate peasant poor but scrimping to make ends meet. Gina talks about the high cost of butter and both are thrilled that they’ve managed to let their spare room which will bring in a bit of extra money.

(Apparently, in the original language Gina’s speech is littered with grammar mistakes and malapropisms i.e. getting words mixed up, to indicate her lack of education, though English translations struggle to convey this.)

Old Ekdal appears with a bundle of documents to copy and shuffles across to his room. Although he tries to hide it Gina and Hedvig realise he’s got a bottle of booze. Years in prison broke him. He is an alcoholic.

Hjalmar arrives, he shows off some of the knowledge he acquired at the party (the banter about vintages) which impresses the girls but Hedvig had been telling Gina how excited she was because he promised to bring her something, but he forgot. He rummages around for the menu from the party to give her but Hedvig can’t help crying with disappointment.

Then Gregers arrives. He is rather shame-faced in front of Gina. His polite enquiries reveal that Hedvig is 14 and Gina and Hjalmar married 15 years ago. I think we are meant to deduce that Hedvig is old Werle’s child i.e. the old man got his serving maid pregnant, sent her home to her mum, who then engineered for her to be married off to the naive Hjalmar.

When she is out of the room fetching their guest a beer, Gina and Hjalmar also reveal that Hedvig has a degenerative disease of the eyes. They haven’t told her but a doctor has confirmed it. When Hjalmar says the doctor said it was hereditary Gregers starts in a way that suggests he realises it was inherited from his father. As in Ghosts, the implication seems to be that sexually transmitted infections are hereditary, which is incorrect. The symptoms of an STI such as syphilis would only be passed to Hedvig if the mother, Gina, had them but here she is apparently right as rain.

The act ends when, as part of telling them about the apartment, Gina and Hjalmar mention that there’s a spare room they want to let out. Now in fact, before the men arrived home, Gina and Hedvig had been gleefully celebrating that they’d managed to let the room and would thus be generating family income but had agreed not to tell Hjalmar till the following day. The result of this decision is that Hjalmar doesn’t know the spare room is let and when Gregers asks if he can have it, Hjalmar promptly says yes, although the girls look at each in mortification.

But the most important part of the act is when Old Man Ekdal insists on letting Gregers into their secret – this is that the entire back part of the loft, which they reveal by rolling apart two sliding doors, is a kind of menagerie: it contains hutches for rabbits and hens along with loads of pigeon roosts.

And Old Ekdal proudly displays his latest acquisition, a wild duck which was shot by Gregers’s father during a shoot, which was winged and fell into the lake and down into the water but was rescued by a plucky hunting dog. They took it back to Werle’s grand house where it didn’t thrive to Werle ordered it killed but his servant, Pettersen, who we met in Act 1, is friendly with Old Ekdal and saved it and passed it on to him. And now it’s been given pride of place in a special manger, here in the Ekdal attic.

Act 3

Same scene, the main room at Hjalmar Ekdal’s which is to be the setting of all the remaining scenes. Next morning. Hjalmar is grumpily getting on with touching up the most recent photographs. He snaps at Gina who has booked a couple to come and have their photo done. It becomes plain that he is a difficult man to live with, partly because he feels the weight of so many responsibilities.

Gregers and Hedvig: Gregers finds himself alone with Hedvig and finds out more about her, discovers that Hjalmar has stopped her going to school (because of the strain on her sight, though she doesn’t know that), promised to home school her but hasn’t found the time. Instead she helps out round the house and spends her spare time in the back room which, besides being a menageries is a lumber room full of old books which she loves to read or rather gaze at the pictures. Hjalmar realises she is a sensitive child full of untapped potential.

Gregers and Hjalmar: a lengthy exchange in which Hjalmar reveals that he doesn’t like photography and leaves most of that to Gina. His heart lies in his inventions. Some of this is tinkering, for example making not just the sliding doors which partition off the menagerie but also a kind of curtain which can be raised from the floor. He also likes stripping down, oiling and fixing his father’s antique rifle. He is, in other words, good with his hands, not with the aesthetics of photography.

And it’s now that Hjalmar reveals to Gregers he’s working on a marvellous invention which will restore the good name of the Ekdel family name. It’s only commitment to this project which keeps his head up above all these ‘petty things’ i.e. the shabby life he is forced to lead. We don’t get any detail about the invention but a strong feeling that Hjalmar is bonkers.

He also has a pistol, in fact to Gregers’ alarm he fires it in the menageries then, realising Hjalmar is here, emerges to explain that he indulges his father’s whim and fantasy that he is a still a proud lieutenant in the army. He places the gun on a shelf telling Hedvig to be careful with it as it still has a round in the chamber.

You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to instantly suspect that a loaded gun, on a stage, must inevitably go off. From this point onwards the only question is who is going to get killed.

In fact talk of the gun triggers a monologue explaining how brave and proud Lieutenant Ekdel was in his prime, a hunter of bears, a commander of man but reveals that when he was sentenced there was a moment when he was alone with his pistol and put it to his head but… failed to pull the trigger. And then, even more upsettingly, tells Gregers about the time that he, Hjalmar, the son of a disgraced army officer, crushed by circumstance, also held the gun against his breast, but also bottled out – despite all his ill fate, determined to live (p.166).

Trying to make light of all this, Gregers says there’s something of the wild duck about Hjalmar, what with being shot and winged, and mauled by a hunting dog and plunged down to the depths of a lake. He continues the metaphor, telling his friend he is living in a poisoned atmosphere, a swamp (from which Gregers obviously means to save him) but Hjalmar becomes offended and asks him to stop (p.167).

Lunch. Gina has invited to the two men who live downstairs, Dr Relling, a doctor, and Molvik, formerly a student of theology. Lunch is, of course, the setting for several further revelations. Just as the two guests from downstairs are greedily tucking in, Old Ekdal emerges from the loft with a fresh rabbit skin, announcing that he’s just killed, skinned and salted a rabbit. Tender-stomached Molvik makes to vomit and rushes out the room.

But the main revelation is Dr Relling telling everyone that, when he was young, Gregers used to go among the cottages of the labourers up at his father’s works preaching about ‘the claim of the ideal’. In other words, Gregers is an inveterate idealist, preacher and saver of souls. This adds depth to his attempts to heal the Ekdel household.

Hjalmar has just offended everyone, especially Gina, by telling them he doesn’t like the poisonous atmosphere, when there’s a knock at the door. Just as in ‘An Enemy of the People’, the set is busier than Piccadilly Circus.

To everyone’s surprise it is the villain of the piece, old Håkon Werle. He asks to see his son in private so the others vacate the stage. Werle asks Gregers if there’s any chance of his returning home or accepting the partnership in the firm to which his son, inevitably, says No. What does he expect to achieve here? To open Hjalmar’s eyes to the truth. And does he expect Hjalmar to thank him for having his eyes opened?

Lastly the father asks his son if he’s going to return up to the works? No, he regards himself as having quit his employ. How is he going to live? Oh he has a few savings which will last as long as it takes. This exchange strongly confirms the sense that Gregers is going to carry out his mission then kill himself.

His father leaves, the other characters re-enter the stage and Gregers invites Hjalmar for a walk, he has a few things to tell him. Both Relling the doctor and Gina tell him not to go but Hjalmar asks what possible harm could there be?

Well, the audience realises, the vast harm of having the bottom ripped out of his world.

Act 4

Later the same day, Gina had handled the appointment with the couple who wanted to be photographed and is getting anxious about Hjalmar. He arrives home and is a changed man. Gregers has foolishly and selfishly told him everything. For a start he forgets that it’s his daughter’s 15th birthday tomorrow. When she mentions the wild duck he rashly says he wishes he could wring its neck which reduces her to tears. He hugs her and sends her off for her evening walk.

This allows Hjalmar to confront Gina with all the lies she’s told. She clarifies that she didn’t sleep with Werle when she was in her service, it was afterwards, when she’d gone back to live with her mother and her mother encouraged her to in order to make money. So Hedvig is old Werle’s child.

One last point: Gina has always done the household accounts so Hjalmar’s never realised how much money Werle contributed to them, allegedly pay for Old Ekdal’s copying work. Hjalmar thought he was supporting his family but turns out even this is a lie.

Gregers, in his idealistic stupidity, knocks and comes in expecting to find a scene of seraphic sweetness and light so is disappointed to find the couple in deep gloom. Gina curses him. Relling the doctor comes in, quickly learns the situation and warns them all that it’s the children who suffer most in broken marriage.

At which point there’s another knock on the door and it’s Mrs Sörby. She’s come to say goodbye because she’s going up to the works at Höidal because she’s getting married to old Werle. They all react surprised but Dr Relling reminisces when they knew each other when they were younger. At least Werle won’t beat her up like her first husband, now dead. Gregers toys with telling his father his new wife once had a thing for Dr Relling but Mrs Sörby says she’s told her husband-to-be everything about her past, no secrets at all.

She reveals she will be a useful housemeet to Werle considering that he’s going blind. Now we see the genetic link between Werle and Hedvig.

Hjalmar now invokes the same stupid idea Dr Relling accused Gregers of peddling to the labourers, ‘the claim of the ideal’, and in this spirit announces to Mrs Sörby that he pledges to pay off the entire ‘debt of honour’ i.e. all the money Werle has given to his household under cover of paying Old Ekdal. This is, obviously, a stupid and impractical thing to do.

Re-enter Hedvig who is girlishly excited because she met Mrs Sörby going out who gave her an advance present for her birthday, a letter. When she shows it the others realise it is addressed in Old Werle’s hand. Hjalmar opens it and it is a splendid gift from old Werle; that Old Ekdal need do no more work but will be awarded a pension of 100 crowns a month and when he dies, this sum will pass to Hedvig! Hedvig is, of course, thrilled and says she’ll give it to her mummy and daddy and asks why they aren’t happy.

Gregers asks Hjalmar what kind of man he is and, in effect, goads him until Hjalmar calmly tears the letter in two. He then asks Gina why the old man encouraged her to marry him and Gina reluctantly explains that Werle expected to be able to call by and shag her after her marriage. Hjalmar asks Gina point blank whether Hedvig is his child and she says she doesn’t know.

Hjalmar says he can’t stay in the same house a moment longer. Gregers says he must stay in order to win through to ‘that sublime mood of magnanimity and forgiveness’ which he is so obsessed with promoting, like all zealots, like all interfering busybodies.

Hedvig comes out of the kitchen as Hjalmar prepares to leave, he refuses to hug her, she clings on to him screaming, he can’t bear it, pushes her away and walks out. Gina says he’ll go fetch him back and exit.

This leaves Gregers along with Hedvig. She doesn’t understand why her Daddy has left, was it something she did? She mentions the wild duck and Gregers decoys the conversation onto that. Turns out she’s added the wild duck to her regular evening prayer for her father. Gregers makes the preposterous proposal that Hedvig should kill the wild duck as a sacrifice in order to win her father back, to show that she is ready to make the biggest sacrifice in her world for his love.

Gina comes back saying Hjalmar’s gone out with Dr Relling and Molvik on the piss, and ruing the interference of clever strangers.

Act 5

Next morning, heavy snow on the skylights. Gina discovers Hjalmar did go out with the boys the night before and spent the night at Dr Relling’s i.e. downstairs.

Dr Relling arrives and delivers a blistering reality check. he tells Gregers he has a bad case of inflamed scruples; he is addicted to finding heroes to worship who are not heroes at all, like this Hjalmar who was very plausible at college because he was handsome and could quote other people’s ideas and words but was always a hollow man.

Dr Relling goes on to deliver what may be the play’s Big Idea which is the crucial importance of the LIFE-LIE. This is the lie about ourselves which enables us to go on living. Dr Relling has invented a category, the demoniac, to describe Molvik, who wears it as a badge of pride which explains his behaviour. Old Ekdal has invented his own life-lie and treats the loft with its old Christmas trees and rabbits as if it’s a vast forest which the he-man hunter bravely treks through. And Hjamar had a life-lie of himself as Provider for his family who was on the cusp of making the Great Invention which would free his family, until Gregers came along to destroy it.

Gregers disapprovingly asks if Dr Relling equates his ‘life-lie’ with Gregers’ notion of ‘the ideal’ and Dr Relling says, Damn right he does.

Hedvig enters. When Gregers points out that she hasn’t killed the wild duck, Hedvig very sensibly says she woke up this morning and it seemed like a silly idea. Ah, says Gregers, that is because you are a mere child and haven’t learned the ‘joyous spirit of self-sacrifice’. He really is a sanctimonious wanker.

Gregers leaves and Old Ekdal enters from the loft. Hedvig gets him to describe how he would go about hunting and shooting a wild duck – in the chest, that’s the place, he explains. After he’s pottered out Hedvig goes over to the shelf where Hjalmar left the pistol with one bullet in it and is touching it when Gina enters and she quickly turns away.

Hjalmar knocks and enters. Hedvig runs crying over to him but he cruelly pushes her away. He’s only come for his scientific books. (It’s a telling detail that Gina tells him these books a) lack spines i.e. they’re knackered and old but at the same time b) haven’t had the pages cut i.e. he’s never read them. The entire inventor thing is a palpable life-lie.)

When Hjalmar goes to go into a bedroom to look for his autobiography and other papers he sees Hedvig again. She comes out and tries to cling to her but he pushes her away. It’s then that she starts to think about the wild duck, about Gregers’s suggestion to sacrifice it. She goes to the shelf, takes down the pistol, hides it and sneaks backstage into the loft without her parents noticing, as they fuss and fret about which suitcase Hjalmar can use to take his stuff etc.

Gina asks if he wants to take his flute but he says no, just the pistol. They both look for it but can’t find it and assume the old man’s gone off with it.

Gina is admirably restrained. With the common sense of the uneducated she doesn’t make a scene or listen to any of Hjalmar’s fluff about the ideal and instead makes him a hot breakfast and cup of coffee. Erst fressen, den der Moral. Even as he craps on with his typically male grandiloquence and self-flattering visions of going from door to door in the snow asking someone to give him shelter, Gina tops up his coffee, brings him butter and feeds the animal, and the animal softens and asks, well, would it be possible for him to maybe bunk down in the living room for a few days. A process of healing the mind through the body.

In a similar spirit he comes across the letter from old Werle which he tore up yesterday, fingers it a bit, then asks Gina to bring some glue and more paper, and pastes it back together. After all, what right does he have to deprive someone else (his father) of their property.

Unfortunately the meddling imbecile Gregers arrives but Hjalmar is tired of his guff. When Gregers tells him he has his invention to live for, Hjalmar pooh-poohs that there’ll ever be an invention; anything good has already been invented. He reveals it was Dr Relling who gave him the idea of making a Great Invention in Photography, at which Gregers and we the audience go, aha – so this was the life-lie Dr Relling gave him – and that it made Hjalmar intensely happy to have one.

Now his life is in ruins. Above all he wonders whether Hedvig has ever loved him or whether she’s overheard Mrs Sörby and the other women talking, has realised she isn’t Hjalmar’s child, and has played him for a fool, just waiting for the opportunity to get money from her real grandfather and leave. What if Werle and Mrs Sörby come along and entice her away with a better life. Now his love for his daughter has been crushed.

It’s at this point that the gunshot we’ve been waiting for ever since we saw the pistol rings out. Gregers explains that Hedvig got her grandfather to shoot the thing that means most to her, the wild duck, in order to prove her love for her father. Hjalmar takes this at face value and is transformed, saying everything’s going to be alright now.

Unfortunately Old Ekdal comes out his bedroom door wondering what the shot was about. Gregers is even more impressed, that Hedvig has shot the wild duck by herself, but when they throw open the door to the animal loft they, of course, see her lying on the floor.

They carry her out and lay her on the table while Gina shouts down the stairs for Dr Relling who comes running and, after an examination, declares her dead, shot in the heart.

Hjalmar is thrown into an absolute delirium of anguish, if only he could call her back just for a minute, just long enough to tell her how much he infinitely loves her, oh God God, why won’t you allow me to tell her etc.

They carry her body into her bedroom for privacy and Gina tells Hjalmar that now they are the child’s parents, united in sorrow.

Dr Relling tells Gregers it was suicide. The powder burn on the dress indicates it was pressed right up against her chest. Gregers tries to salvage something by saying at least the child’s death will have an ennobling effect on the parents. Dr Relling witheringly replies, Give it nine months. Hjalmar is no poet or hero. He will spend the rest of his life wallowing in sentimentality and self pity. And Dr Relling sums up, maybe, the moral of the story:

RELLING: Life wouldn’t be too bad if only these blessed people who come canvassing their ideals round everyone’s door would leave us poor souls in peace.

Comments

Secrets and lies in marriage (yawn), combined with two of the half dozen oldest stories in the world – the rich and powerful man who has adulterous affairs and children with his servants and the innocent man who is palmed off with someone else’s child.

As the play went on, the simple-minded religiose language of Gregers, who insists his friend is undergoing a great spiritual revival, began to really irritate me. He’s an interfering twat.

Similarly, I got tired of his repeated use of the key phrase ‘claim of the ideal’. a) It’s such a stupid phrase in itself, but b) Ibsen has Gregers repeat it in a totally unrealistic way, more like a parrot than a man. This obtrusive repetition of the play’s catchphrase reminded me of the over-use of the phrase ‘enemy of the people’ which dominates the second half of the play of the same name.

According to the introduction, many critics consider ‘The Wild Duck’ Ibsen’s greatest play and, certainly, all the backstories and information are released in instalments with great cunning and artistry. But, in my opinion, all this artistry is in support of a dull premise. A poor man discovers his child may not be his after all and that his family is secretly supported by wealthy man who’s probably the child’s real father…

The symbolism of the wild duck hung very heavy round the neck of the narrative from its first mention – is it a poor, delicate, wounded and vulnerable creature like the girl who adopts it? Yes.

On top of this is the sheer dumb obviousness of the loaded gun. Everyone knows if you bring a loaded gun onstage in a play it is sooner or later going to be fired, from the moment it appeared the only question was who was going to snuff it and Ibsen plays with this by having Hjalmar tell Gregers about both his and his father’s suicide attempts. But these turn out to be not-so-clever decoys from the true victim.

And I was very upset by the suicide which ends the play but not in the way Ibsen intended: rather than bursting into tears at the sacrifice of this sweet innocent I was upset by how flagrantly manipulative it was.

A digression about opera: in my late 20s and 30s I went to lots of operas, at the Royal Opera House and the English National Opera, at festivals and experimental theatres. All in all I went to about 100 operas. Eventually I started to get a bit fed up with several things about seeing opera, like how long they are and how hot it gets up in the gods at opera houses. But it was something very specific which made me stop buying tickets. I happened to see a run of four or five nineteenth-century operas in a row and in every single one the female lead died. Carmen, Tosca, Madame Butterfly, La Traviata, suddenly I had a kind of revelation. I looked around me and saw hundreds of people all being entertained by the spectacle of women being tortured, blackmailed, threatened, dying of disease or tormented into killing themselves and suddenly, in a flash, it disgusted me. The whole notion of women being subjected to grotesque suffering for my entertainment sickened me. I stopped and I’ve never been back.

So that is the mood in which I read the description of poor sweet Hedvig’s suicide and I felt that same revulsion all over again, that I was being emotionally manipulated and that a 14-year-old girl was the tool of my manipulation. Yuk!

In the same scene Hjalmar’s thrashing around begging for God to give him just one more minute so he could tell his daughter how much he loved her etc… I’d had enough.

It’s extremely well constructed, deeply pondered, the work of a master, but I didn’t like it at all.

Repelled by the exploitative melodrama of the climax, I realised I most enjoyed the opening scenes at old Werle’s party. I liked the banter between the servants Pettersen and Jensen. I liked the simple honest excess of the fat man and the bald man boasting about how much they could eat at a sitting. Gross but in a straightforward way which does nobody any harm except themselves.

A bit more subtly I liked the way Gina, with the wisdom of the uneducated, knew she didn’t have to engage in all this man talk about ideals and life-lies but simply had to lay on coffee and toast to begin to win her man back. I liked the subtlety of that scene and I think Gina emerges as the most sympathetic character, with almost all the men behaving like idiots.

But the constantly reappearing figure of Gregers, whose idiotic ‘idealism’ ruined every life he touched and killed a lovely little girl, left a very bad taste in my mouth.

James McFarlane’s introduction

In 1881 Ibsen began to draught an autobiography. He didn’t get further than his boyhood but that was enough to revive memories of: his sister, who was called Hedvig (!); his father who was bankrupted, suffering social ostracism and reducing the family to penury; the cramped attic where the Ibsen family was forced to live; the mess of furniture, old books and junk left by the previous occupants. In other words, there’s a surprising amount of autobiography in ‘The Wild Duck’.

McFarlane brings out how the world of the Ekdal household, although built on ‘a lie’ is a lovely fantasy. Hedvig lives a child’s fantasy of her father. Old Ekdal is away in his fantasies of hunting in the great pine forests. Hjalmar lives for his fantasy of becoming the Great Inventor, despite the complete lack of evidence for this. Only the down-to-earth Gina doesn’t live in a fantasy which is ironic because she is the one at the heart of the ‘lie’ i.e. the knowledge of how the entire fantasy world is sustained by Old Werle who used her as his mistress.

Like many of Ibsen’s plays ‘The Wild Duck’ comes ready-made for critical analysis. It is perfectly designed to be converted into a Sparks Notes summary of characters and themes. It is prime A-level material. ‘Discuss the role of truth and deception in…’ etc.

The central conceptual clash, I suppose, is between Dr Relling’s notion of the life-lie, the self-deceptions necessary to make the harsh realities of life bearable, to give life a meaning – and Gregers’ insistence on the claim of the wretched ‘ideal’, namely remorseless truth-telling at any cost. There’s enough there for a good essay. What McFarlane’s introduction made me realise was there’s a third big philosophy of life, which isn’t given a big name and is hiding in plain sight, and this is the worldly wisdom of Old Werle.

Werle makes no great speeches, wields no big ideas, but he represents the triumph of savoir faire, how to get on in the world, how to run a successful business for decades, how to arrange and manipulate everyone around you to suit your needs. As the play proceeds, what we see and sympathise with is the systematic destruction of all Hjalmar’s delusions: he thought he was happily married, he thought his wife was faithful, he thought he had fathered a beautiful little girl, he thought he was the provider and keeper of his little family – and he is wrong on every single on of those counts. Werle is presented as his nemesis, as the evil wizard behind all his woes. What’s not so obvious is to see it from the other end of the telescope, as a play about Werle’s triumph. This is what worldly wisdom looks like.

Apparently, we have Ibsen’s drafts of many of his plays and McFarlane explains what the drafts of ‘The Wild Duck’ tell us. This is that all the characters existed in early drafts but then he moved them around, gave them names or removed names, to create a sense of foreground and background characters. And the same with issues or events. McFarlane points out how the precise details of Old Ekdal’s crime, the murky references to Old Werle mistreating his wife, and above all the exact status of Hedvig’s paternity, these are all important but left deliberately vague and blurred, like the background in a painting.

Lastly, McFarlane devotes a page to the symbol of the wild duck itself which I found boring. He says it fulfils two functions: it means something but something different to every individual in the play; and it binds together the many strands of the play. Although it is never seen and not mentioned for long periods, in some sense it binds together not only the characters but the many themes of the play.

I can see how this is true and I can appreciate the extraordinary skill of the play’s construction. But it’s an entertainment based on the killing of a 14-year-old girl and I couldn’t overcome my simple revulsion at that fact.


Credit

I read ‘The Wild Duck’ in the 1960 translation by James McFarlane which was packaged up, along with his translations of ‘An Enemy of the People’ and ‘Rosmersholm’ into a World’s Classics paperback in 1988. I read the 2009 reprint.

Related links

Ibsen reviews

Play reviews

  • Play reviews

An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen (1882)

Hurt and dismayed by the hostile reception of his 1881 play Ghosts, Ibsen responded a year later with the dramatic story of Dr Thomas Stockmann, a man of principle holding out against social pressure and much the kinds of high-minded moralising criticism which he had endured.

Executive summary

A doctor discovers the newly-opened spa and public baths, which have been attracting visitors to the town and boosting the local economy, are seriously polluted, threatening disease and illness. When he tries to publicise this the town’s leading figures gang up to silence him and the townspeople as a whole declare him ‘an enemy of the people’.

Unlike most of Ibsen’s plays, whose successive acts are set in the same room and whose drama comes from the interplay of characters, ‘A Man of The People’ features a couple of locations (a newspaper office, a rowdy public meeting) which are much more colourful than usual and give the play a lot more surface vim and energy.

Cast

  • Dr Thomas Stockmann, Medical Officer of the Municipal Baths
  • Mrs Katherine Stockmann, his wife
  • Petra their grown-up daughter) a teacher
  • Ejlif and Morten Stockmann (their sons, aged 13 and 10 respectively)
  • Peter Stockmann, the doctor’s elder brother, Mayor of the town and Chief Constable, Chairman of the Baths’ Committee and so on
  • Morten Kiil, a tanner Mrs. Stockmann’s adoptive father)
  • Hovstad, editor of the ‘People’s Messenger’ newspaper
  • Billing, sub-editor on the Messenger
  • Aslaksen, printer of the Messenger
  • honest Captain Horster

Act 1. The news

Dr Stockmann is the physician attached to the newly opened spa baths in an (unnamed) Norwegian town (‘a dump like this where nothing really happens.’)

As the play opens he’s delighted to be back from a long period spent working as a doctor in the far north of the country, lonely and isolated, and for a pittance. He revels in his new income as physician to the baths, revels in luxuries like eating roast beef, buying a new table cloth and surrounding himself with representatives of the new younger generation such as Hovstad, the muck-raking editor of the town’s populist newspaper the Herald, and his deputy, Billing. Stockmann is excited, maybe over-excited, to be back in a decent-sized town.

And we also learn that he has a reputation for outspokenness. His brother pops by and wryly remarks that Thomas is prone to sending great screeds to the newspaper about any subject under the sun, sounding off intemperately without any consideration for the impact he has.

PETER STOCKMANN: You have a chronic disposition to take things into your own hands…In a well-ordered community…the individual must be ready to subordinate himself to the community as a whole; or, more precisely, to the authorities charged with the welfare of that community.

This is a succinct expression of the view the doctor will, of course, come to completely oppose.

After grumpy Peter leaves, Dr Stockmann encourages his guests – Hovstad the editor, Billing his deputy and the sea captain Horster – to eat their fill of the roast beef, then pull up chairs in the living room for a chat. Most notable fact is that Horster is due to sail to America in a week. Hovstad is surprised that Horster doesn’t even know there’s a municipal election pending, he doesn’t care about politics.

Dr Stockmann’s daughter Petra arrives. She’s a young schoolteacher. She loathes having to teach her pupils lies:

PETRA: There is so much falsehood both at home and at school. At home one must not speak, and at school we have to stand and tell lies to the children.

So Petra represents the young generation irked at having to trot out the same old beliefs (presumably, in Christianity).

Anyway Petra brings with her the letter Sr Stockmann has been waiting for. When he reads it he announces the news to the characters onstage (his wife, Petra, Hovstad, Billing and Horster) that hte famous baths they’re so proud of are in fact a sink of pollution. ‘Filth’, presumably sewage, from ‘up at Mölledal’ has been leaking into the pipes which take water to the pump room. This explains why tourists to the spa the previous summer fell ill with typhoid and gastric fever. The spa which has so recently contributed to the town’s new-found prosperity is, in fact, a stew of pollution and disease. Stockmann sent some water samples to the university laboratories and the letter he’s just read contains the conclusive, and damning, results.

Stockmann mistakenly thinks that what he’s discovered is a great contribution to his community. Admittedly they will have to build the water pipes so they go higher into the mountains and extract purer water, but he has found the source of the disease and ensured the spa’s future.

In this he is backed up by family – his wife Katherine and schoolteacher daughter Petra and by his guests – Hovstad, Billing and Horster. In fact they all congratulate Stockmann and Billing wonders if the town oughtn’t to make him some special award, ‘You’ll be the leading light of the town, doctor’ and Stockmann himself wonders if they might increase his salary.

His family and guests shout three cheers, toast him as a hero, and the act ends with him taking his wife round the waist and dancing a joyful, laughing dance of celebration.

All this is very obviously setting him up for the fall which the rest of the play describes. For what Stockmann doesn’t grasp, in his naivete, is how this revelation is going to set the entire town against him. Above all, Stockmann doesn’t understand that his news will put him in bitter opposition to his brother, the town’s mayor, Peter Stockmann, as we will see in Act 2.

Act 2. A visit from the mayor

In Act 1 Thomas sent his brother, by hand messenger, a copy of the article he plans to write about the pollution for the Herald. At the start of Act 2 it is returned with a note telling him Peter will visit at midday.

Katherine’s step-father, Morten Kiil visits. He is a wily old man who doesn’t understand the first thing about biology, doesn’t know the germ theory of disease and so thinks Dr Stockmann’s story about lots of tiny animals in the water is a kind of elaborate joke. Mind you, he’d like it if the town was taught a lesson as he is still smarting from being kicked off the town council for being too old. (You can begin to see how all the characters adopt positions vis-a-vis the town council / authorities. You could draw a mind map with ‘town council’ at the centre and lines going off in all directions with a description of each character’s relation with ‘the centre’.)

As Kiil goes out, enters Hovstad. He’s been thinking about the doctor’s discovery and wants to broaden the issue out from attacking the swamp (or cistern or sewage farm) up at Mölledal, to make it into an an attack on the entire administration, on the authorities, on the town council, run by the wealthy and their cronies, a ‘ring of obstinate old buffers who’ve got hold of all the power’. Hovstad says things will only change when the working class have a say in the running of town affairs.

Enter Aslaksen who, as well as being the printer of the People’s Herald is also chair of the Ratepayers’ Association. He’s heard the story about the Baths and has come as a representative of ‘the compact’ majority to give his support. He’s considering writing a formal ‘address’ to be made to the doctor. Not, obviously, to offend the authorities, that would never do. In this he is, timidly, miles away from Hovstad who wants to offend as many people as possible and proceeds to lambast him when the old man has exited.

Since Stockmann has the article he’d drafted and sent to h is brother in  his hand, he now gives it to Hovstad and tells the delighted editor to publish it, at which he leaves.

Obviously plays and dramas move forwards in the sense that things happen, events lead to crises and climaxes etc. But Ibsen’s plays also work backwards, if that makes sense. What I mean is that, as the action moves forward, Ibsen deploys a schedule of revelations which open up the past and shed light on all the characters’s backstories and motivation.

In this case, Peter the mayor arrives and the brothers have an extended set-piece argument. In this we find out that 1) it was Dr Thomas’s original idea to funnel water to the town baths and establish them as a health cure but that 2) it was Peter, in charge of the town council, who made the foolish decision to lay the pipes for the water shorter and lower than pure mountain streams, so that muck from the Mölledal swamp leaks into them.

In fact early in Act 1 it is explained that the brothers compete about who had the idea in the first place: Peter tells Hovstad that even if the basic ideas was his brother’s, you need a practical man to get things done so it was he, Peter, who actually had the Baths built. But that explains why now, in the argument in Act 2, Thomas tells Peter that the positioning of the pipes was an epic blunder and all Peter’s fault.

In other words, the whole situation was created by these two brothers, it’s a family affair

All this comes out when Peter the mayor delivers some bitter home truths. The doctor naively thinks the town will now have to relay the pipes but the mayor says this will cost a fortune and may take years. During that time the baths will have to be closed, the tourist trade for health spa visitors will collapse and all the newfound wealth and confidence the town was enjoying will come to an end. Meanwhile other neighbouring towns have seen the wealth it brings so they’ll all copy the town’s idea and they’ll permanently lose their place as the innovators.

No, the mayor insists that Dr Thomas makes a public announcement denying the truth of the report i.e. publicly lie to save the town’s economy. Further, he wants Thomas to make a public statement saying he has every confidence in the Board to manage things. When Stockmann is outraged the mayor says he can have him sacked from his job as medical supervisor of the baths; after all, he’s the one who got him the job in the first place.

Peter asks Thomas to consider what impact his role in ruining the town will have on his wife, on his family, daughter and two school-age sons.

At which point Petra bursts in. She’s been eavesdropping from outside the room, followed by Mrs Stockmann. They’re just in time to stop the brothers coming to blows.

This could all be a one-way street with the doctor carrying Ibsen’s message about individualism, but Ibsen makes some effort to balance the argument. The mayor is definitely wrong to want to hush up a serious public health emergency. But on the other hand his criticism of Thomas for being headstrong, over-reacting, writing to the press to express every whim and opinion without pausing to consider the consequences for others – all of this is not only plausible but we see it onstage in Thomas’s (over)excitable character.

This is demonstrated in the act’s last few moments, after Peter has stormed out, when Stockmann’s wife and daughter present different arguments. Wife Katherine begs Thomas to stop and consider the wellbeing of his family, his sons and her. Idealistic Petra says the opposite, criticises her mother for being a coward and tells her father to plough on, concluding that he is fine! He will never give in!

Act 3. In the newspaper office

In the office of the Herald, Billing finishes reading Stockmann’s article and comes to discuss it with Hovstad. They both agree it’s not just a statement of the facts but a damning indictment which rains hammerblows down on the administration. They both talk about it causing a ‘revolution’ although, in practice, this appears simply chucking out the present council and getting them replaced by the Liberal party.

Dr Stockmann

Stockmann arrives still fuming from his row with his brother. He tells them ‘this is war’, to print the article and promises it’s only the first of many. He’ll write many more devastating the administration, bombarding them, crushing them, bettering them, smashing their defences! (On the face of it this is exhilarating, but it’s also done in such a way that you see the justice of brother Peter’s criticism that Thomas is always headstrong and never thinks of the consequences, the bigger picture.)

They call the older printer, Asleksen into the office, who disapproves of all this wild talk and urges moderation but is swept away by the wild-eyed enthusiasm of the other three:

DR STOCKMANN: All those dodderers have got to be chucked out! Wherever they are!…my friends, what we must look for is young and vigorous men to be our standard bearers. We must have new men in command in all our forward positions.

Billing declares Stockmann should be acclaimed the people’s friend and they all toast and cheer him, till he says he has to go and see a patient now, but can’t wait to see his article in print…

When he leaves, though, this united front crumbles a bit. Hovstad makes it clear he wants to use the doctor for his own political agenda, i.e. changing the council for a Liberal one. Aslaksen doesn’t like all this talk of revolution and embarrasses Billing by revealing the latter has applied to become secretary to the council – to Hovstad’s amazement.

Petra

When Asleksen goes back into the print room the other two wonder how long they have to put up with the timid old so-and-so i.e. revealing the extent to which they’re using each other. When Billing goes back to his office enter Petra. She had been commissioned to translate a short story in to English for the paper but has come to say she refuses to do it. When Hovstad asks why she explains that it’s one of those old stories which talk about a big daddy in the sky who will make everything well and punish ill-doers (presumably Ibsen didn’t dare simply write ‘Christian’) and she doesn’t believe in such stuff any more and she hopes he, Hovstad, the apostle of Truth and Enlightenment won’t either.

Hovstad reveals his practical/cynical side by explaining that if you want to persuade people of the Truth and New Thinking on the front pages, you have to offer them something reassuring and familiar on the back pages…

Then he goes a bit further, in fact too far, and reveals that he’s only championing her father because…well, because of her. He doesn’t have to say much more but he’s implying he fancies her, has an eye for her etc.

When she realises what he means, Petra is staggered, appalled, the scales fall from her eyes, she is bitterly disillusioned, she will never forgive him etc. Hovstad then makes it a lot worse by saying she shouldn’t be like that because her father is going to need his help…which sounds creepily like blackmail. Petra hands him the book and stalks out without another word…

The mayor

At which point enter the mayor. Hovstad is fairly obsequious to him, he is the local boss. Peter confirms the Hovstad is planning to publish his brother’s article, although Hovstad weasels out of full responsibility. When Aslaksen enters again, the mayor goes to work on him, He silkily explains to them both what the doctor’s article means. The baths will close for several years putting people out of work. The new piping will costs 200,000 kroner which will have to be raised from the ratepayers i.e. the petit bourgeoisie Aslaksen represents.

This news is a thunderbolt to Aslaksen and shakes Hovstad. Peter cannily gives them a way out of their predicament by suggesting that the entire thing is a story, a fiction or exaggeration cooked up by Dr Stockmann who is well known for being impetuous and rash. Aslaksen and Hovstad are only too willing to fall in behind this interpretation.

At which the mayor announces that he just happens to have a short factual article which puts a completely different spin on things, addresses the ‘rumours’ but claims it’s nothing the current Board can’t easily deal with. Seeing which way the wind is blowing, Hovstad (rather easily) agrees not to print the Stockmann article but to print the mayor’s short report instead.

At this delicate moment Dr Stockmann returns. They quickly bustle Peter into a side room, Billing’s office, then Hovstad is all formality when the doctor enters. Amusingly, the doctor in his pomposity begins to explain to Hovstad that it’s occurred to him that the grateful people of the town might wish to honour him, with a banquet, say, or a procession and he really thinks…as he burbles on Hovstad tries to get a word in edgeways to tell him the lie of the land, but they’re both interrupted when Mrs Stockmann (Katherine) enters.

Katherine

Katherine has been looking for her husband and now confronts him with a more vehement appeal to consider the plight of his family. She incidentally upbraids Hovstad for encouraging her husband in his ruinous decision to publish the article, heavily ironic seeing as Hovstad is struggling to announce that that is just what he isn’t going to do.

Stockmann’s pomposity goes into overdrive as he marches up and down the stage declaring he won’t be put off, even by his wife, declaring that Truth and the People will prevail, imagining the massed ranks of a citizen army marching to victory!!

It’s at this moment he notices the mayor’s hat and stick which he left on Hovstad’s desk in his hurry to nip into the side room. Instantly grasping the situation, Dr Stockmann puts on the hat and marches up and down swaggering the stick till he opens the door to Billing’s office and calls his brother out. All this amply demonstrates Stockmann’s character as a bit unhinged, a bit crazy.

In a nutshell the mayor reveals that Hovstad and Aslaksen have come over to his side. Astonished Dr Stockmann asks them if it’s true, and Aslaksen in particular says yes, the reading public, the ratepayers, the whole population will be against him.

Suddenly, at a stroke, in his mind’s eye, Stockmann goes from being the leader of a people’s army to being a rebel against the people. Suddenly it’s precisely the people who are the problem.

As a last thought he asks Aslaksen to publish his article as a pamphlet but Aslaksen refuses and says no-one else in town will either. ‘I daren’t offend public opinion.’

Stockmann says if he can’t get the article printed, he’ll call a public meeting. Aslaksen assures him no-one will hire him a hall, so Stockmann wildly claims he will hire a man with a drum to accompany him round town as he declaims it.

Outraged at the turncoats Mrs Stockmann changes her tune and declares she’ll stick by her husband.

DR STOCKMANN (puts his arms round her and kisses her): Thank you, my dear! And now, gentlemen, the gloves are off! We’ll see whether you and your shabby tricks can stop an honest citizen who wants to clean up the town.

When the mayor comments that he’s driven his wife mad as well, it’s not just an insult, you do see the force of his comment, that there is something unhinged in Dr Stockmann.

Act 4. The town meeting in Captain Horster’s house

The whole town assembles in Captain Horster’s house including all the main characters. The meeting is being held here because all the other venues refused Stockmann permission i.e. he has alienated the entire town whereas Captain Horster is an old friend who doesn’t understand politics of any kind.

The meeting scene is a combination of strident seriousness with some pretty low comedy. As they assemble various townsmen say they’ve brought their cow’s horn and whistles, hoping for a riotous evening out rather than a serious debate. There’s a drunk man at the back who keeps shouting comic misunderstandings of the main speeches and being thrown out by the men around him only to reappear and shout some more comic stuff. Critics have deprecated this but I thought it added to the general messiness and scrappiness of public discourse, of the ‘public’ as often little more than a disorderly mob, which is Ibsen’s serious point i.e. most people are stupid and misunderstand whatever you try to say. Brexit. Trump.

Earlier the same day the Herald printed the mayor’s factual notes about the Baths which calmly pointed out that all Dr Stockmann’s accusations are false, and most of the people attending the meeting have read that article and accept it as the truth.

Things are about to get started when the mayor floats the idea that the meeting needs a chairman which is quickly taken up and so, against Thomas’s wishes, Aslaksen the newspaper’s printer, is elected Chairman of the meeting.

This was a canny move because it allows Peter to then put it to a vote whether Dr Stockmann should even be allowed to speak, a move backed by Aslaksen in a speech which repeats his mantra of ‘moderation’ but also his petty bourgeois concern that the expense of the doctor’s proposed rebuild would fall entirely on the members of his ratepayers’ association.

Then Hovstad stands up to deliver a subtle character assassination of Stockmann, saying he (Hovstad) is an old friend and initially supported him until he learned that his account was based on errors. Now he laments that his friend’s heart is in the right place but he is often too headstrong.

Despite his wife’s attempts to calm him down, Thomas becomes so infuriated by all this prevarication and censorship that he announces he is going to speak on a different subject.

And it is now that he delivers what we imagine to be The Author’s Message. This is an impassioned denouncement of the stupidity and obtuseness of the majority in any community or society, a decryal of the ‘colossal stupidity of the authorities’ and the small-mindedness of ‘the compact liberal majority’. Stockmann laments how mediocre public opinion is always against anything new, how it opposes anything new and truthful, how the genuinely individual is always crushed and stifled by respectable society.

Hovstad shouts that the majority is always right to which Stockmann replies that the majority is stupid. No matter where you go in the world it’s the fools who make up the overwhelming majority.

He goes into a bit more theory, claiming that ‘truth’s have a fixed lifespan. After a while they become senile and need to be put out of their misery. But that’s precisely the moment when ‘the majority’ take them up and swear by them. Hovstad defends the tried and tested old truths but Stockmann says it is exactly that attitude which is holding society back. It is the masses who are polluting society’s spiritual life and infecting the ground they stand on. The greatest lie is that the common people, the most ignorant, uneducated and stupid sections of society, should have the final say. The handful of intelligent individuals in a society must always fight to be free, to escape from ‘the mass mind’. It is the triumph of the mass, of the liberal compact mind which Aslaksen and Hovstad promised him back at the start, which has ensured their entire town is built on a quagmire of lies and deceit.

Understandably, the townspeople feel roundly insulted by these accusations and become angry but Stockmann then goes way over the top. He says he loves the town so much he would rather see it razed to the ground then thrive on lies. And then that all the people who live this lie deserve to be ‘wiped out like vermin’, deserve to be ‘exterminated’.

Unsurprisingly this turns the entire audience against him, one man says it’s the talk of an ‘enemy of the people’ and the chant is taken up across the room. This is taken up by Aslaksen who proposes a motion that Stockmann formally be declared ‘an enemy of the people’.

During the chaotic voting Morten Kiil comes up to Stockmann to check he heard right something Stockmann said in his speech which is that his, Kiil’s tanneries, are the worst offenders in leaking impurity into the pipes. He warns that if this fact is printed anywhere it will be very costly for the doctor.

Separately, a Mr Vik goes up to Captain Horster and asks why he is loaning his house to an enemy of the people. When Horster says it’s his to do what he likes with, Vik says two can play at that game.

Back on the stage Aslaksen announces the result of the vote which has unanimously declared Stockmann an enemy of the people.

As the meeting breaks up Stockmann asks the captain if there’s room for his family on his ship going to America (as we learned in Act 1). Voices in the mob declare they should go and smash his windows or dunk him in the fjord and the scene ends with the mob chanting ‘enemy of the people’ over and over again.

Act 5. Repercussions

It’s the next morning and back in Dr Stockmann’s house after a night of rioting, which has seen crowds outside his house chanting slogans and throwing stones through his windows. He and his wife are clearing up. The maid brings a message that the glazier won’t be able to attend to fix the windows as he is scared what people will think, prompting a characteristic outburst from Stockmann: ‘they’re all cowards, the whole lot of them. Nobody dares to do anything for fear of all the others.’

The maid now presents another letter which has been handed in at the door. It’s from their landlord. He is serving them notice to quit. He’s evicting them.

Katherine asks if he’s thought through this sudden plan to leave for America. Stockmann is under no illusions that there won’t be public opinion and stupidity in America, too, but it’s bigger and a man can hide.

Petra comes home unexpectedly to announce that she’s been sacked from her school for her association with an enemy of the people. The head didn’t want to do it but had received letters accusing Petra of holding ‘advanced’ views. The letters were, of course, anonymous, making Stockmann curse the authors as cowards and announced ‘We are not going to live in this stinking hole a moment longer.’

Captain Horster enters to considerately ask how they are and if they got home safely last night before announcing that although his ship is still sailing to America he won’t be captaining it. He, too, has been sacked. His boss, like Petra’s is a decent sort but, like Petra’s, he daren’t do otherwise, afraid of public opinion.

His brother Peter the mayor arrives with an envelope containing his notice. Of course, he doesn’t himself want to sack him, but he daren’t do otherwise, afraid of public opinion. As to trying to find another job, he won’t. The Ratepayers Association is distributing a petition to all its members and nobody will dare not to sign it.

There’s a further twist. Peter now insinuates that Thomas was only brave to mount this whole campaign and attack the members of the council because he knew he was provided for in old Morten Kiil’s will. This is in fact complete news to Stockmann but when he rejoices that his wife and children will be looked after, Peter chooses to interpret this as meaning that the doctor and Kiil had been in a joint conspiracy, then extrapolates that maybe Thomas only launched the campaign in order to truckle to Kiil’s wish for vengeance against the council, for sacking him from his post on it and levying such high taxes.

Out of nowhere Peter has conjured this imaginary conspiracy and pretends to be shocked at Thomas’s deceitfulness while Thomas is astonished at Peter’s Machiavellian cynicism. These brother will never understand each other. Peter stalks out.

Enter the very same father-in-law Morten Kiil with an even more amazing revelation. He tells Dr Stockmann that he has just spent the entire large sum he had set aside to bequeath to Katherine and his boys buying up all the shares in the Baths. Last night Stockmann told him that his tanneries were the worst offenders so now he wants to make things right; he wants Stockmann to clean up the Baths and clear his name.

But to put it another way, if he doesn’t succeed then the shares are worthless and Katherine and the boys will inherit nothing. Persisting with his story about the pollution and disease will impoverish his wife and children. Stockmann walks up and down the room in a daze and berates his father-in-law for putting him in this ridiculous situation. Kiil then makes it even worse by saying he has until 2pm today to decide whether he can come up with a cover story, invent a way of cleaning the water, or just changing his story, or he’ll give the shares to charity and Katherine will inherit nothing. Until 2pm and he walks out.

Just as Hovstad and Aslaksen arrive at the front door. Blimey, it’s like Piccadilly Circus at the Stockmann house this morning!

Hovstad and Aslaksen note old Kiil leaving which confirms their suspicions. They’re heard the rumour that old Kiil has been buying up shares in the Baths and they now believe that the entire thing was a collaboration and a sting. They offer to put their services and the newspaper at his command when he’s taken over control of the Baths and to back whatever plans he has to expand or renovate them.

Stockmann the naive at first doesn’t understand what they’re driving at but when the penny drops he decides to play along a bit in order to ask what they’re expecting to get out of it. Oh nothing much, replies Hovstad, it’s just that the Herald is undergoing a bit of a financial crisis at the moment, so a bit of funding or support would be very welcome.

When he says what if he doesn’t give them a penny, both men strongly imply that they’ll blackmail him, threatening to expose his conspiracy. In other words (as in Hovstad’s tacky propositioning of Petra) both men, so quick to sound off about Truth and Independence, turn out to be as corrupt as the establishment they seek to overthrow.

Once he’s heard them out, Stockmann goes bananas, grabs his umbrella, chases them round the stage brandishing it (for some reason I suddenly saw him as Captain Haddock and imagined him chasing the two creeps round and round the table shouting, ‘Ten thousand blistering barnacles in a thundering typhoon’).

He threatens to make Hovstad climb out the window but is interrupted by the entry of Katherine which allows Hovstad and Aslaksen to escape through the door.

The play winds up quickly. Goaded beyond endurance, Stockmann sends a message to Kiil saying No no no. Screw the inheritance. Screw his job. Screw America. He tells Katherine they’re not going to leave, they’re going to stay here, scrimp and save as best they can, and Stockmann is going to devote himself to being an enemy of the people and excoriating the people in power with all his might.

At that moment his sons, Ejlif and Morten come in. When Stockmann asks them if they have a holiday they say, no, they got into a fight about him at school so their teacher told them to stay away for a few days.

At which moment Stockmann has another brainwave. Oh God, not another one, moans his long-suffering wife. Yes, he will home school his sons and to do so he will set up a small school. He’ll educate the children of the very poor. Katherine asks why on earth he wants to stay and Stockmann replies because he is the strongest man in town. And when Katherine asks what he means, he replies that he has made yet another discovery (oh no):

STOCKMANN: The thing is, you see, the strongest man in the world is the man who stands alone.

Ibsen and Allegory

Liberal criticism insists that all art and literature be about something, an attitude I loathe. One of the things I loved about Samuel Beckett’s plays is they’re not really about anything. There are people and they might say things but the real thing going on is the patterns and the repetitions, the counting and the calibrated movements.

Well, Ibsen is a great genius but the thing I like least about his plays is how they offer themselves up to the deadening clichés of liberal criticism and interpretation. Thus it is bleeding obvious that Dr Stockmann represents a certain type of integrity and honesty and is then set against a little set of opponents who each represent other types. You could make a mind-map with Stockmann at the centre representing INTEGRITY and then lines leading off to each of the secondary characters, each with their own allegorical title. In fact despite his vaunted realism and father of modern theatre reputation, in the highly schematic conception of his dramas Ibsen reminds me of medieval allegory, The Faerie Queene or the Pilgrim’s Progress.

Thus his brother the mayor is Mr Worldly Wise, clever at deploying arguments personal and political, and managing meetings, bureaucracy, and the crowd, in favour of his position.

The printer Asleksen is the Voice of Moderation, only ever opening his mouth to council caution and moderation which, Ibsen shows, is really a form of moral cowardice.

Hovstad is Mr Slimy Corruption, who makes a huge song and dance about his independence and free speech and integrity but turns out a) happy to publish bollock old stories about Christianity purely to butter up his conservative readers, b) in a gruesome scene, tries to hit on Petra, and c) once he realises the doctor’s revelations will be ruinous for the town and his paper, completely abandons the doctor only at the end to 4) reveal he thinks the whole thing is a scam, worthy of his own corrupt view of the world.

Billing is Hovstad’s Mini-Me, a loudmouth about ‘the revolution’ who turns out to have applied for a job as secretary to the very council he claims to want to overthrow.

And then The Mob, the townspeople, the populace, possessors of Public Opinion which turns out to be the only force in this wretched society. Not Christian belief, not even traditional morality, rule this society but fear, the fear which leads their landlord to evict them, Petra’s headmistress to sack her, the boys’ teacher to send them home, and old Captain Horsley to be relieved of his command. Fear of supposed Public Opinion is all that drives this society.

And his daughter is Miss Pure-in-Heart, supportive of what is clearly a not completely accurate image of her embattled, sometimes hesitant father, holding him to the Path of Righteousness.

James McFarlane’s introduction

I like James McFarlane’s translations. They’re surprisingly clear and modern considering they were done in the late 1950s. I also like his introduction which makes the following useful points:

‘An Enemy of the People’ is generally considered the thinnest of Ibsen’s mature plays. It was written in half the time he usually spent on a play. It was a quick angry response to the criticism of ‘Ghosts’.

Some critics see ‘An Enemy’ as the end of a series which began with ‘Pillars of Society’ (1877) with ‘Rosmersholm’ inaugurating a new mode of composition that characterised his final seven plays, with ‘The Wild Duck’ playing the role of swing position, the switch between middle style to final style.

Part of the pace of ‘An Enemy’ is due to the way it dramatises extremely well-worn opinions of Ibsen’s. His correspondence amply proves Ibsen’s profound hatred of any party or association or grouping of any sort which based itself on the ‘majority’, majority decisions or majority rule. As long ago as 1872 he talked enthusiastically about undermining the whole concept of the state for the state is the curse of the individual.

Rather amazingly, his politics veered towards anarchism and the extreme left because they, at least, cared about the important things in life while he thought the large organised political parties traded in nothing but lies and sham. He considered freedom’s worst enemy to be organised Liberalism.

Well the harsh reaction to ‘Ghosts’ drove these opinions into overdrive and added a new vitriolic loathing of the press, especially the Liberal press, which spouts bombast about freedom but turns out to be the craven slave to ‘public opinion’ and organised pressure groups and its own circulation figures. He thought the press (in McFarlane’s words) ‘a parasite on the grotesque and deformed body politic’ (Introduction page xi).

When he comes to look at the details of the play McFarlane makes the point that both Dr Stockmann and Gregers (from ‘The Wild Duck’) have only recently returned from a long period up north or in isolation from society. This (not very subtly) explains why they fail to understand even the basic realities of the societies they try to reform. Their ideas are abstract, untempered. They lack knowledge of what is socially possible.

Individualism

To quote McFarlane, Ibsen was at pains in the play to stress:

the need for individual decision, the necessity for individual responsibility and the value of individual courage… (Introduction p.xii)

which is interesting because I’ve just been reading the essays of Oscar Wilde from a few years later, from the late 1880s, in which he bases an entire creed on the cult of individualism, for example The Soul of Man under Socialism which is a hymn to the paramount importance of the Individual. On the face of it you could hardly have two authors more unlike in subject matter and style than Ibsen and Wilde and yet here they are, sharing the same underlying ideology – why? Why do two such dissimilar writers both evince the same horror and revulsion at the way late-Victorian bourgeois society sets out to crush individuality and spirit?


Credit

I read ‘An Enemy of the People’ in the 1960 translation by James McFarlane which was packaged up, along with his translations of ‘The Wild Duck’ and ‘Rosmersholm’ into a World’s Classics paperback in 1988. I read the 2009 reprint.

Related links

Ibsen reviews

Drama reviews

  • Play reviews

Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen (1881)

‘Here I go battling on with ghosts, both within and without…’
(Old Mrs Alving lamenting her lot in Ghosts, page 126)

A drama about not only the sexual and religious hypocrisies of late-nineteenth century bourgeois society but of the multiple levels of deceit and, more profoundly than that, the dead hand of old ways of thinking, which lie like ghosts upon the lives of the living.

Act 1

Pastor Manders arrives at the estate of widowed old Mrs Alving, situated near a fjord. The next day he is due to deliver a speech at the opening of a new orphanage named in honour of her dead husband, the Captain Alving memorial Home (p.103)

Mrs A is attended on by a young buxom serving girl, Regine. Regine’s crippled, often drunk carpenter father, Jacob Engstrand, has been over on the estate helping to build the new orphanage. He shambolically tries to persuade Regine to accompany him on a ferry back to his house in town but she refuses. Engstrand has a plan to set up a refuge for merchant seamen. He wants Regine to help out but this quickly degenerates into a vision of her dancing and entertaining the sailors in the evenings, and the suggestion that if she plays her cards right she’ll wangle herself a ship’s officer or even captain. And she wouldn’t have to marry them, just extract money in return for…At which point a furious Regine threatens him and forces him to back out through the French windows.

After some time away in Paris, her artistic son Oswald has returned for a visit.

There’s a long conversation between Manders and Mrs Alving which reveals a whole load of scandalous family secrets. Manders triggers it all by accusing Mrs A of being a bad wife for running away from her husband after just a year of marriage and seeking refuge with him, the pastor.

Nettled, Mrs Alving decides to reveal the truth. During that miserable first year of marriage she had discovered that Alving was a womaniser and a philanderer and how wretched it made her feel. Manders dismisses this by pontificating about the duties of a wife and mother:

MANDERS: All this demanding to be happy in life, it’s all part of this same wanton idea. What right have people to happiness? No, we have our duty to do, Mrs Alving! And your duty was to stand by the man you had chosen and to whom you were bound by sacred ties.

And:

MANDERS: It is not a wife’s place to sit in judgement on her husband. Your duty should have been to bear with humility the cross which a higher power had judged proper for you.

As if accusing her of being a bad wife isn’t enough, Manders then goes on to accuse her of being a bad mother, in that she sent her son away when he was only seven to be raised in a different household.

‘Slowly and with control’ Mrs Alving then unleashes the truth. Her husband never reformed, her husband carried on being a corrupt womaniser till the day he died. He forced her to sit with him getting drunk on wine and listening to his stupid stories before she had to roll him into bed. For nineteen long years of married purgatory she had to put up with his dire behaviour.

And he had an affair with their maid. She overheard them in the conservatory, her husband making a move, the maid (Johanna) trying to push him away. He got the maid pregnant. The whole thing was only hushed up by giving her a big cash sum ($300) and packing her back to the arms of her boyfriend, the very same ramshackle old Jacob Engstrand we saw at the start. So Regine is the illegitimate daughter of her ex-husband. Engstrand was flattered by her returning to him and then, she came with a tidy sum of cash and a story about some passing some rich foreigner who’d taken advantage of her, so shamefacedly went to Pastor Manders to get them married in a hurry (p.122).

It was because, aged seven, Oswald was getting old enough to ask questions that she sent him away. Not because she was a bad mother, because she was a good mother who didn’t want him raised in a household full of corruption and lies (p.118).

This is why she has devoted a lot of money to building the orphanage in her husband’s name, to try and prevent any whiff of scandal. But there’s another, buried motive. The orphanage cost exactly as much as her bride price. She wanted to get rid of it because ‘I don’t want any of that money to pass to Oswald. Anything my son gets is to come from me.’

When, on the morrow, the orphanage is opened, Mrs Alving will feel it like an exorcism. At long last the ghost will be laid and ‘this long, ghastly farce will be over’ (p.120).

But then something strange happens. In a way which breaches realism but is packed with symbolic meaning, both the pastor and Mrs A hear a scuffled coming from the dining room and then Regine’s voice urgently whispering: ‘Oswald! Are you made? let me go!’

The heavily moralising or symbolic point is that – the young generation are repeating the sins of their parents. Or, as Mrs Alving puts it:

MRS ALVING: ‘Ghosts! Those two in the conservatory…come back to haunt us.’ (p.120)

Act 2

Act 2 picks up in the same drawing room immediately after dinner i.e. an hour later, and shows Mrs Alving still reeling from the revelation that his son is trying it on with her maid and Manders reeling from the way everyone involved lied to him. Manders reassures himself that the marriages were all carried out according to law and order but Mrs Alving blasphemously wonders whether it’s the law and order which cause all the trouble and delivers a Nora Helming outburst:

MRS ALVING: I’m not putting up with it any longer, all these ties and restrictions. I can’t stand it! I must work myself free! (p.124)

This leads into a classic ‘moral’ quandary, namely should Mrs Alving tell her son the truth about his father. Pastor Manders, as representative of social morality, finds himself arguing no, that she shouldn’t burst his illusions and ideals. But Mrs Alving now feels that observing the proprieties i.e. lying, for all those years, and continuing to lie to her son, just indicts her as a coward.

She starts out saying she needs to get Regine out of her house as soon as possible, to send her back to her father. But then, pondering her reluctance to go home, she voices another scenario: maybe she should encourage Oswald and Regine, if not to marry, then at least to commit to live together, unconventionally but honestly.

Manders is horrified because…it would be incest – they both share the same father, they are half-brother and sister. To which Mrs Alving delivers the devastating response:

MRS ALVING: Do you think there aren’t plenty of couples all over the country who are every bit as closely related? (p.125)

So now we can see how incest brought about by male philandering is the core of the plotline. But Mrs Alving goes on to deliver a little speech which rises above this ‘issue’ to address a more imaginative or symbolic level:

MRS ALVING: Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was just like seeing ghosts. But then I’m inclined to think that we are all ghosts, Pastor Manders, every one of us. It’s not just what we inherit from our mothers and fathers that haunts us. It’s all kinds of old defunct theories, all sorts of old defunct beliefs, and things like that. It’s not that they actually live on in us; they are simply lodged there, and we cannot get rid of them. I’ve only to pick up a newspaper and I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. Over the whole country there must be ghosts, as numerous as the sands of the sea. And here we are, all of us, abysmally afraid of the light. (p.126)

Impressive speech and compelling vision, especially to someone like me with my view of the unchangeability of human nature which condemns each new generation to repeat the behaviours of the previous ones.

Because now there’s another revelation (Ibsen’s plays seem to proceed from one devastating revelation to another) which is that back then, nineteen years ago, when Mrs Alving ran away from her unfaithful husband, she ran to Pastor Manders because she was in love with him and she knew he was in love with her. In the pastor’s mind, the greatest achievement of his life was overcoming his own personal wishes, putting duty and responsibility first and telling Mrs Alving to return to her husband. Now her revelations that this led to 19 years of purgatory throw into doubt the meaning of that great ‘victory’. He calls it a victory over himself but Mrs Alving calls it ‘a crime against both of us’.

What’s more it led her to rethink the entire notion of religious faith, honour, duty and so on, and the harder she thought about them the more they fell to pieces in her hands:

MRS ALVING: Yes, when you forced me to submit to what you called my duty and obligations. When you praised as right and proper what my whole mind revolted against, as against some loathsome thing. It was then I began to examine the fabric of your teachings. I began picking at one of the knots but as soon as I’d got that undone, the whole thing came apart at the seams. It was then I realised it was just tacked together.

So she’s quite the speech maker and quite the social radical.

Scene: Engstrand plays the pastor

Then enters Engstrand. He puts on a big performance for the pastor, claiming that now the orphanage is finished he and the lads would like the pastor to mark it with a little service. Manders hits him between the eyes with everything Mrs Alving’s told him, that Engstrand only took Johanna back for the money and lied and lied to him (Manders) about getting her pregnant etc etc. But Engstrand (who needs, I imagine, to be played by a slyly comic actor) comes over all working class piety, clutching his hat in his hand and yes my lord no my lord-ing Manders. He spins events to place himself in the light of a pious hard-working soul who saw it as his duty to rescue this poor sinner woman (Johanna) etc. When directly accused of only marrying her for her money (the $300) Engstrand loftily insists he never touched a cent of it but used it all to educate his (legal) daughter, Regine.

Manders is completely taken in and enchanted. When Engstrand exits to go and prepare the building for a little service Manders turns triumphantly to Mrs Alving and says ‘Well?’ but she (presumably like the audience) has completely seen through Engstrand and finds Manders’ naivety touching: ‘I say you are a great big baby and always will be’ and goes as if to hug him till the pastor flinches back in naive horror. He exits to go carry out the promised service.

Scene: Oswald’s illness

In the silence that follows Mrs Alving hears the tink of glass from the dining room and is disconcerted to realise Oswald is still in the dining room. She thought he’s gone for a walk. She calls him in to the living room (the main set) worried he might have overheard some of their talk. But this is quickly eclipsed by Oswald making a revelation to her (another of Ibsen’s revelations) that he is ill, very ill, so ill that he thinks he’ll never be able to work again.

In Paris, he’s been having more and more severe headaches and he went to see a specialist who confirmed that he has some kind of inherited sexual disease, or, as the doctor put it, ‘The sins of the father are visited upon the children.’ But Oswald shows the doc all the letters from his mother (Mrs A) praising her husband, Oswald’s father, to the skies (lying, as required by social convention), and so proved it couldn’t have been an inherited STI.

At which point Oswald blames himself for leading an indulgent bohemian lifestyle. He reiterates that it’s all his own fault and he can’t live with the guilt of wrecking his own life. If only he had someone else to blame it on…

Well, there’s a ton of dramatic irony here because half an hour earlier we learned that it almost certainly was inherited from his dissolute father (though the genetics and/or disease theory of all this is pretty ropey: he could, in fact, only have been infected via his mother i.e. the captain gave Mrs A syphilis or some such which she transmitted to Oswald at birth. The Wikipedia entry has a footnote dealing with the science).

Anyway, obviously Mrs Alving paces up and down in anguish, knowing that with a few sentences she could release her son from his crushing guilt but only at the cost of destroying his illusions about his father. I know it’s meant to be heart-wrenching scene of a poor mother torn between etc etc, but the patness of it, the cunning artifice of it, is quite funny.

But Mrs Alving doesn’t get to tell the truth because first he a) desperately asks for something to drink to wash away his headful of anguish and then b) makes his mother sit with him while he drinks champagne and…asks her opinion about Regine: ‘Isn’t she marvellous looking, Mother?’

He is, in other words, unconsciously copying his father, drinking far too much, forcing her to listen to him burble on, and fancying the maid. But then he goes further (as I say, Ibsen’s plays seem to consists of a succession of revelations).

He tells his mum that last time he was home he was waxing lyrical about the joys of life in gay Paris when one thing led to another and he playfully said: ‘You must come with me there’. Now, on his return, he’s discovered that Regine remembered that remark and took him literally. (This is why she’s been learning French and explains why Regine’s character keeps popping little French tags into her conversation). Anyway, she asked him: ‘What about my trip to Paris?’ and it suddenly made sense to him – that Regine, so full of life and certainty, can be the cure for the dread and anxiety he feels.

During the scene Mrs Alving had asked Regine to fetch a half bottle of champagne. Now Mrs Oswald tells her to bring another, whole, bottle and Oswald adds, ‘as a glass for yourself.’ As Regine returns with the bottle and the third glass and, very nervously accepts a drink, Oswald tells his mother his mind is made up. He’s returning to Paris and taking Regine with him.

This finally stings Mrs Alving into action and she stands and announces she has something to tell them (obviously a) his father’s immorality and b) their incestuous consanguinity). But at that moment, probably meant to be dramatic but also has a comic impact, the parson enters, as in a Whitehall farce.

He is surprised to see Regine sitting with the other two and holding a glass of champagne as if she is their social equal but flabbergasted when Oswald announces that she (Regine) is leaving with him for Paris as his wife! For the second time Mrs Alving stands and says now she is going to speak plainly but, for a second time is interrupted. For this time they hear shouting in the distance, throw open the windows and see that the brand-new orphanage, which was due to be opened the next day, is on fire!

Act 3

Scene 1

They’re all back in the main house later the same night, with the embers of the ruined orphanage glowing in the distance. It burned to the ground. Nothing was saved.

Remember how I described the scene where Engstrand posed as the embodiment of aggrieved piety, insisting that he married Joahnna out of Christian charity rather than for her little nest egg, in order to wrap the pastor round his little finger? Well, that scene has its sequel here. For we find Engstrand with mock reluctance persuading the pastor that it was him (Pastor Manders) who started the fire, it was he who they left to put out the candles, who they all saw pinch one out with his fingers and chuck the stub away, unfortunately into a pile of shavings.

Manders doesn’t remember any of this and insists that he never puts candles out that way, but Engstrand’s mock-apologetic insistence wins him round. The con man (for that is what he is) insists that he’ll stand by Manders at the public hearing, which there’ll have to be, and will do his best to deflect the anger of the townspeople at the loss of the orphanage which was going to be benefit everyone (by taking parentless children off the rates).

And one last thing: the money to find the maintenance and expenses of the orphanage was to come from the interest from her bride price which Mrs Alving had invested. Now that money needs a purpose at which point Engstrand usefully pipes up to remind the pastor about his plan for a Seaman’s Home.

Just in case there was any doubt whatsoever that Engstrand invited the pastor down to the orphanage to carry out a ‘service’ precisely in order to burn it down and blame him, and thus secure the funding and support for his own project, Ibsen gives Engstrand an ‘aside’ to his daughter in which he says: ‘Now we’ve got him nicely, my girl.’ Ibsen is routinely described as a giant of modern theatre but moments like this are as subtle as a stage villain twirling the ends of his black moustache and cackling, ‘My evil plan is working!’

There’s a final joke so broad surely the audience was meant to laugh. Engstrand helps Manders on with his coat and makes a parting promise:

ENGSTRAND: And this place for seafaring men, it’s going to be called the ‘Captain Alving Home’, and if I can run it my way, I think I can promise it’ll be a place worthy of the Captain’s memory. (p.152)

Well, as we learned earlier, the captain turned out to have been a world class philanderer, adulterer and womaniser, and this confirms the passage of the opening scene where Engstrand was trying to encourage his own daughter to come back to the city with him so as to provide ‘entertainment’ for the sailors, in the form of singing, dancing and sexual favours. I was surprised to find Ibsen doing such broad comedy.

Scene 2

So the comedy duo of Manders and Engstrand exit, leaving the tragic trio of Mrs Alving, Oswald and Regine. Oswald has only just staggered in from the scene of the fire in a semi-catatonic state. He sits stiffly while his mother cleans his face and then calls for all the doors to be closed to try and shut out his terrible feeling of dread. He starts to talk wildly, almost cackling. Basically, the actor has to give the impression of someone who’s mind is genuinely going.

Mrs Alving hurries to comfort him but poor Regine is, understandably, bewildered. Nobody told her her posh knight in shining armour was going mad.

So Mrs Alving proceeds to tell her son that his father was just like him, full of joy and energy but, finding himself trapped in a provincial town with a wife confined by her sense of duty, he felt trapped and took it out in womanising and getting drunk. And then, elliptically, refers to the fact that Regine is his father’s daughter i.e his half-sister. That makes them both sit up!

And Regine announces she will leave at once. She was having second thoughts about mad Oswald and this thunderbolt clinches it:

REGINE: No, you won’t catch me staying out in the country, working myself to death looking after invalids. (p.156)

So she wraps her shawl around her and announces she’ll hurry off to try and catch the same ferry as the pastor and her ‘father’ or ‘that rotten old carpenter’ as he calls him. Angry at being lied to, and being brought up as a servant instead of on equal terms to Oswald, she storms out, leaving the sad mother and mad son.

Scene 3

The thrust of the scene is that Oswald doesn’t feel anything for his dead father. He barely knew him and has one and only one memory of him, as a boy, making him smoke a cigar till he was sick. When Mrs Alving gives way to convention (contradicting her speeches earlier in the play) and says surely a son ought to have a duty to love a father, Oswald replies that’s just one of those old superstitions, just a relic lying around, to which Mrs Alving replies, ‘Ghosts’, and the audience go, ‘Yes, the title, the theme, we get it.’

But Oswald reveals a dismayingly instrumental view of Mrs Alving, he likes her and she will do to look after him in his illness. But then he makes her pull up a chair and reveals (remember how Ibsen plays consist of a carefully paced series of revelations?) that his illness is not physical, it’s in his head. He had an attack in Paris which rendered him helpless as a baby.

Mrs Alving is horrified but promises to be a mother to him when these attacks happen. But Oswald explains that the next attack might be permanent, infantilise him forever, and he’d be a bed-bound baby until he was old and grey. This is the course of his dread.

Which is why he shows her the small box he keeps in his breast pocket. In it are 12 shots of morphine. When he has his next attack he wants her to administer them and kill him. She screams and says, ‘What? Me who gave you life?’ to which Oswald makes the slightly teenage reply:

OSWALD: I never asked you for life. And what sort of life is this you’ve given me. I don’t want it! Take it back!

So from having been about incest this has become a play about euthanasia. Packs in the topical issues, doesn’t he, Ibsen? Mrs Alving promises she will, if he has an attack, administer the poison. Oswals calms down. She pulls up her chair and promises to look after him like a mother looks after a child. Dawn breaks over the mountains and the fjord.

And it’s at this moment that Oswald has an attack, saying, ‘Mother give me the sun,’ then shrinking in his chair, going flaccid, losing his mind, repeating flatly ‘the sun, the sun’. Mrs Alving leaps to her feet and screams, struggles to find the box Oswald just gave her, says yes, yes, then no, no, and stands staring at him in horror as the curtain falls.

Comment

I thought it was going to be a predictable number about Victorian sexual hypocrisy and double standards but the central plot of Regine and Oswald being half-siblings by the same father and the threatened risk of their incest takes things to a higher, more dangerous level.

But then, in the last few pages, the entirely new topic of a mother faced with the euthanasia of her stricken son has a blistering intensity which blots out everything which came before it.

A searing, intense, deeply disturbing experience.

The title

According to Wikipedia:

Ibsen disliked the English translator William Archer’s use of the word ‘Ghosts’ as the play’s title, the Danish or Norwegian Gengangere would be more accurately translated as ‘The Revenants’ which literally means ‘The Ones Who Return’…It has a double meaning of both ‘ghosts’ and ‘events that repeat themselves’ which the English title ‘Ghosts’ fails to capture.


Related links

Ibsen reviews

Play reviews

  • Play reviews

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen (1879)

‘Poor little Nora.’
(Torvald Helmer speaking to his wife, Nora, in A Doll’s House, page 6)

When this volume, Four Major Plays by the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828 to 1906), was published by Oxford University Press as a World’s Classic paperback back in 1981, the translator and editor James McFarlane was able to claim that Ibsen was the most frequently performed dramatist in the world after Shakespeare; and that, in the early 20th century, ‘A Doll’s House’ was the world’s most performed play.

What lay behind Ibsen’s extraordinary success and dominance? Between 1850 and 1899 Ibsen wrote a staggering 27 plays but it is the run of 12 issue-led plays he wrote in the last quarter of the century which made him the father of a certain kind of earnest social realism and A Doll’s House is widely considered one of the first and best of his mature plays.

Plot summary

We are in the house of a bourgeois couple with two children. It is just before Christmas (a Christmas tree is delivered and decorated during the play) presumably to highlight bourgeois hypocrisy, because Christmas should be when a happy nuclear family celebrates itself, whereas here, of course, it is used to highlight the secrets and lies hidden behind the respectable facade.

Torvald Helmer and his wife Nora Helmer are happy because he has just been given a new job as manager of the local bank. Torvald treats his wife, Nora, with extraordinary condescension, referring to her as various types of harmless little animal – my little squirrel, my little singing bird, my pretty little pet, my pretty little songbird, the pretty little skylark, little frightened dove – and continually demeaning her. ‘helpless little thing that you are’ etc.

And Nora does indeed come across as an empty-headed noodle, given to casual fibs, pleasing herself without thought of the consequences, thinking that if she means well all will end well. Several characters refer to her as a ‘child’:

  • MRS LINDE: Nora! In lots of ways you are still a child. (p.38)
  • HELMER: The child must have her way. (p.60)

But the husband’s pet names and these references all go to beg the question, Who has kept Nora silly and childlike? And how much has she gone along with her own infantilisation?

The core of the play, the central storyline, is that some years earlier Torvald was very ill. Doctors advised him to travel to the South for his health (so was it tuberculosis?). Nora’s father was dying at the time and so Nora told Torvald that her father had given her the money necessary to go on an all-expenses-paid holiday to Italy, which they duly did, had a wonderful time, and Torvald made a complete recovery.

But she didn’t get the money from her father. She got a loan from a disgruntled employee at the bank, one Nils Krogstad, signing a document promising to make repayments with interest. During the second of the play’s three acts, this Krogstad comes calling at the Helmer family house and confronts Nora with the need to repay the money. Nora is morbidly concerned that her husband doesn’t find out her secret because she only did it for the best, for his health etc. She has been trying to pay back the loan instalments, continually asking Torvald for extra bits of housekeeping money which she then, mostly, passes on to Krogstad.

She has also been doing some work, ‘a bit of copying’ which she did late at night. In a thought which echoes through the play about the lack of rights and freedom for women, she tells Mrs Linde ‘it was almost like being a man’ (p.16).

What’s impressive about the play is the way all aspects and characters are focused on this central issue, of money and Nora’s honesty. Right at the very start Nora returns from a shopping trip where she’s been buying stuff for Christmas, and this includes her favourite treat to herself, macaroons. But when Torvald enters and they immediately go into pat-name-calling mode, she hides them from him and lies about buying any. The issue of truth and lies is made the dominant theme from the start.

This is all helped by the two other main characters, Mrs Linde and Dr Rank.

Mrs Kristine Linde pays a visit. Nora doesn’t at first recognise her, they were at school together years ago, Kristine married a man and moved away from town. Now she reveals that a) her husband has died b) his business, always shaky, collapsed and so c) she has scrimped and saved. She worked to support her mother and brothers but when her brothers grew up and moved away she felt her life was ‘unspeakable empty’ so now she has come to the capital looking for work. She is paying Nora a visit to ask if she can help.

It’s in Mrs Linde’s first visit that Nora (rashly, on impulse) admits that she didn’t use her father’s money to pay for the trip to Italy, but borrowed it – $1,200, 4,800 kronar. Obviously Mrs Linde wants to know who Nora borrowed this huge sum from but Nora is childishly mysterious about it. So this sets one plotline or theme running, with is Mrs Linde’s attempts to guess who lent Nora the money, which includes speculation that Nora might have had an affair with a man to get it, or wondering if it was off the other main character, Dr Rank.

The plot thickens in two directly connected ways. First, Nora works on Torvald and is delighted when he announces that he can find a role for Mrs Linde at the bank where he’s just been appointed manager. Second, Torvald announces that he is going to sack Krogstad. This is for a number of reasons: one is that they were both at school together which makes Krogstad believe he can act on equal terms with Torvald and refer to him casually in front of the bank’s staff and clients (p.43).

But it’s also because Krogstad, at some unspecified point in the past, was discovered to have committed fraud – forged a document – and ruined his reputation. The bank job was by way of being a second chance. To twist the knife, Krogstad’s wife has died leaving him to look after a (unspecified) number of children.

So these are all the facts which lead up to Krogstad paying Nora a visit and, while her husband is busy off in his study, being quite brutally frank with Nora. Krogstad explains that he needs the job at the bank to support his children, but also, psychologically, because he was kicked out of decent employment once, has clawed his way back ‘in’ and will not let it happen again. Therefore he blackmails Nora. He says he will tell Torvald everything about the loan he made to her and how she lied to Torvald back then (about the source of the money which paid for the Italy trip) and has lied about the money she’s been paying back ever since.

But, again, Ibsen twists the knife and takes the situation to a new level of fraughtness buy having Krogstad tell Nora that he knows she lied to him. Specifically, the IOU he drew up required a (male) guarantor and Nora swore she got her (dying) father to sign it. Krogstad has worked out that it wasn’t Nora’s father who signed it, from the simple fact (now he’s looked into it in detail) that the signature was dated three days after Nora’s father died. Conclusion: Nora faked her father’s signature on a legal document. This is fraud. She could be taken to court and, potentially, sent to prison.

So it’s no longer an issue of taking out a loan behind her husband’s back and then sustained lying about it. That would be enough to wreck Torvald’s trust in, and love for, his little squirrel. It’s now about breaking the law and plunging the whole household into ruin, destroying the family reputation and blighting her children’s lives.

So Krogstad presents his ultimatum: if he’s going to be sacked from the bank (as Torvald intends), if he’s going to be kicked out of respectable employed society for a second time, then he’s going to take Nora with him. He tells Nora that she must work on Torvald to let him keep his job, then stalks out.

With every development you admire how streamlined and focused the play is. Because a few moments  after Krogstad leaves, Torvald comes in through the front door, having been out on business, and asks Nora if anyone called. She, anxious to cover everything up, lies and says ‘no-one’. But Torvald says that’s odd because he just saw Krogstad leaving. In other words, he catches her out in a lie and proceeds to deliver a pompous lecture about the wickedness of lying, in the context of Krogstad’s act of forgery and how it spread a web of lies and deceit in his own household.

HELMER: Just think how a man with a thing like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble…A fog of lies like that in a household and it spread disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs. (p.33)

So it’s because of Krogstad’s lies and deceit, and his over-familiarity with Torvald, that the latter wants to sack him. Obviously this powerful sermon against lies and forgery, and the ruinous impact it has on a family and on the children raised in a household of lies, has a shattering impact on impressionable, simple Nora, who tries to hide how shaken she is.

When Nora suggests that Krogstad keep his job, Torvald mistakenly thinks that from kind-heartedness, hence his lecture about Krogstad’s moral corruption, and how he could never accept that in an employee of the bank he’s just taken over.

The fifth character is Dr Rank. He visits the Helmer household almost every day, ostensibly to have a chat with his friend Torval but – you’ve guessed it – mostly because, as he reveals in the second act, he is in love with Nora. She, in that Victorian way, says, Oh I wish you hadn’t told me (p.49). Turns out he is unhappily married and has been ill and depressed but, the new thing revealed in this act is that he has had the diagnosis that he’s dying. He only has a short time to live (a month? p.45), hence his declaration of his love for Nora.

(Incidentally, Rank’s illness is repeatedly attributed to his father’s womanising i.e. we are to take it that his father infected his mother with some kind of sexually transmitted infection (syphilis?) which was passed onto him at birth and is now about to kill him. In other words, he is a walking embodiment of bourgeois sexual hypocrisy, pages 38 and 46.)

Back in the main plot, the Krogstad storyline, Nora tries everything she can to prevent Torvald sending Krogstad written notice of his dismissal, but her insistence only makes Torvald more determined to do it, and so he sends it by messenger boy. Then Rank visits and tells Nora he loves her. This scene is placed here to give enough time for Krogstad to receive the letter of dismissal and walk to the Helmer house and ring at the door. Nora sends Rank into Helmer’s study and receives Krogstad.

Furious at being dismissed, Krogstad is now more aggressive. He tells Nora he’s going to extract everything he can from the situation. It’s not even a matter of the money any more. He’s going to hang on to the IOU as a threat to betray her to the authorities, and he has in his pocket a letter to Torvald explaining the whole situation. What he wants now is not just his old job back but a higher ranking job, he wants to become Torvald’s right hand man. He tells Nora she can’t wriggle out of it now, even if she tries… and neither of them say the word but they have implied suicide as Nora’s only way out.

He leaves but not before popping the letter which reveals everything into ‘the letter box’. This is clearly a box attached to the inside of the front door but which, importantly for the plot, Nora cannot access. Only Torvald has the key to it.

Now Mrs Linde had been in a side room all this time because she had popped round on a social visit and had agreed to help Nora try on costumes for a fancy dress party the Helmers have been invited to attend that evening.

Now Nora is looking so flustered that she admits everything to Mrs Linde – that Krogstad is the man she borrowed the money off, but it’s worse than that, how she forged a signature on a document, how he’s blackmailing her, and how everything is described in the letter he’s just dropped in the (inaccessible) letter box.

Quickly sizing up the situation, Mrs Linde says the only solution is for Krogstad to be called to return and request the letter back from Torvald unread. To carry out this desperate plan, Mrs Linde asks Nora for Krogstad’s address (it’s on a card K gave her) and quickly hurries off to fetch him.

Torvald emerges from his study and goes to look at the fateful letter box but Nora desperately distracts him by saying she has to rehearse her dancing, of the tarantella, for that evening, and persuades him into the living room to play the piano for her.

This turns into the most visually and dramatically vivid thing in the play, as Nora takes up the tambourine which is part of her performance and dances faster and faster, more and more wildly, turning into a Maenad. Her aim is to do it so badly that Torvald has to commit to coaching her all evening, but she is taken over by her genuine despair.

When she finally stops Torvald agrees that he needs to coach her and then takes Rank into the dining room for dinner. During the dance Mrs Linde had arrived back at the house and snuck into the living room and, now the men have gone, tells Nora that Krogstad has left town for 24 hours but she left a note begging him to call (round). When she goes to join the men in the dining room, Nora is left onstage alone to ponder out loud that she only has hours until the game is up, her secret is revealed, her life will be over.

In Act 3 is complicated. It’s the night of the party and the Helmers are attending it. Mrs Linde is in their front room (the set of all three acts). Krogstad enters. 1) We learn that they used to be in a relationship but Mrs Linde threw Krogstad over because he was poor, in order to marry a man with a business, because she had a widowed mother and two brothers to support. But now she reveals she always kept her feelings for him and, astonishingly, proposes that they join forces: she can mother his children, they can work together.

2) Krogstad suddenly has an insight and accuses her of buttering him up solely so he will retrieve the incriminating latter and get her friend Nora off the hook. Again, surprisingly, Mrs L says no, she wants Torvald to read the letter, she wants the truth to come out: ‘These two must have the whole thing out between them’ (p.66). She can’t bear the lies and deceit she’s seen in the Helmer household over the past 24 hours.

Radiant with happiness that he is wanted by his old flame, Krogstad agrees to beat a retreat as the sounds of the tarantella (from the party upstairs) signal that the Helmers are about to return. Barely has he slipped out that Torvald and Nora return.

A married couple alone, he is rather drunk and inflamed by watching her dress and so he comes on to her, embraces her and makes it as plain as someone could in a Victorian play, that he wants to have sex. All backed up by the notion that she is his possession and that, as a husband, he has a right to sex. Nora is repelled and wriggles out of his grasp and puts the table between them.

But then Rank knocks on the door and enters. He is in a merry mood and explains to Nora that he had the final lab results today which were conclusive. He asks for a cigar, has it lit and staggers out the front door.

Torvald now opens the famous letter box, in doing so discovering that someone’s been trying to open it with a hairpin. Nora blames the kids but obviously it was her. There’s also some cards Rank slipped into it on the way out with a black cross against his name. Nora and Torvald discuss how this was always going to be the sign that he (Rank) was going to go home to die. And the shadow of death (and decay) casts a pall over Torvald’s lust and so he agrees they can go to their separate bedrooms.

Torvald goes into his study with the letters leaving Nora in an agony of anticipation and then…He emerges waving Krogstad’s letter and demanding to know if it’s true. He delivers a great long diatribe (pages 75 to 76) calls her a feather-brained woman, a hypocrite, a liar, a criminal, not fit to bring up their children. He says she takes after her father who was feckless and irresponsible. He dwells on how his life is ruined, he will be a failure. People will suspect him of being an accomplice. His reputation will be ruined. He decides he must appease Krogstad, the whole thing must be hushed up. They will go on living as man and wife but in private, the children will be brought up by someone else. All they can do is ‘preserve appearances’.

So you are impressed with the totality of his response, the complete collapse of his love for Nora, his insistence on giving in to Krogstad and hushing it up. But during all this he doesn’t notice Nora’s expression as it hardens.

And then…another dramatic development – a messenger brings a note, the maid brings it in, Torvald tears it open wondering if it’s even worse news but…It’s wonderful news: Kroigstad has sent round the IOU with regrets for what he’s done, Torvald rereads and double checks then throws IOU and letter into the fire.

And this triggers a dramatic volte-face in Torvald. He dances with delight and he reverts to the baby pet name language of earlier times. Let’s forget the whole dreadful thing and promises to teach her how not to be so silly in future:

I shall give you all the advice and guidance you need. I wouldn’t be a proper man if I didn’t find a woman doubly attractive for being so obviously helpless. (p.78)

A theme he then goes on to expand:

For a man, there’s something indescribably moving and very satisfying in knowing that he has forgiven his wife – forgiven her, completely and genuinely, from the depths of his heart. It’s as though it made her his property in a double sense: he has, as it were, given her a new life, and she becomes in a way both his wife and at the same time his child That is how you will seem to me after today, helpless, perplexed little thing that you are. Don’t worry your pretty little head about anything, Nora, just be frank and I’ll make all the decisions for you…’ (p.79)

What he doesn’t realise is that everyone one of these lines is setting up The Author’s Message. For his reaction to the whole thing has killed Nora’s love for him stone dead. Her central point (as I read it) is that she was hoping for a miracle to sort the situation, she was hoping that Torvald would take upon himself the scandal of the IOU, he would own it and stand up to Krogstad.

Instead he did the opposite: in an impassioned two-page rant he blamed Nora for everything, roped her father into his accusation, said he’d do whatever it took to appease Krogstad, and the whole thing had to be hushed up.

Nora realises that her husband is not the strong and gallant man she thought he was and that he truly loves himself more than he does Nora.

And so the scales fell from her eyes and Nora is a woman transformed. She suddenly realises her entire marriage has been a lie. She’s been living with a man who doesn’t understand her at all. And she proceeds to deliver a six-page manifesto of feminist freedom. Key points are:

– her father treated her like a doll, called her his baby doll, played with her like a doll

– in her life with Torvald she has been living hand to mouth, performing whatever tricks will keep him happy

‘I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child.’

‘You and Daddy did me a great wrong. It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life.’

– And so she must strike out on her own. She must educate herself. And not receive lessons in how to be a doll from her husband. And that is why she’s leaving him! She needs to understand herself, she needs to understand society, she needs to find out how she fits in and none of this can she do in the Doll’s House which is her marriage.

So she’s leaving. Now. Taking only her own possessions. ‘I don’t want anything of yours, either now or later.’ This is all incredibly sudden and brutally final. In a set piece passage Torvald accuses her of forgetting her ‘most sacred duty, to her husband and children’. And Nora, in a rebuttal which has had feminists leaping to their feet and cheering for nearly a century and a half, replies:

‘I have another duty equally sacred … My duty to myself!‘ (p.82)

Torvald says she is first and foremost a wife and mother but Nora simply rejects this. These are the roles and labels society has imposed on her. In reality ‘I believe that first and foremost I am an individual’.

Torvald tries to threaten her with religion but, again, Nora says all they hear about religion is the boring sermons of Pastor Hansen. religion, also, is something she has to find for herself.

He says she understands nothing of society. Well all the more reason, she replies, to find out for herself.

Nora says she doesn’t love him any more and never will again. Nothing he says or does can heal the breach. She expected him to take the guilt of the IOU upon himself but he let her down, he blamed her and thought only about himself. He is a complete stranger.  Someone else can look after the children, they will do a better job anyway.

‘There must be full freedom on both sides’

Torvald takes off her ring and gives it back. Brutally, she says he may never write to her. He says can’t he even … but she says No before he can even finish the sentence. Only by a miracle of miracles but she doesn’t believe in miracles any more.

And she walks out the living room into the hall. Torvald slumps at the table with his head in his hands, then looks around, then has a wild moment of hope but … The play ends with the loud banging shut of the big front door which, in its way, has become a famous theatrical moment.

Comments

1) The play is superbly focused, assembled and streamlined in order to present its central dilemma unfolding with a horrible inexorable logic and then erupting in the powerful final set-piece speech from Nora. It moves from scene to scene with a grim relentlessness which distantly evokes the unyielding logic of the Greek tragedies. Initially I wasn’t sure I liked that. One of the appeal of novels is their scope for digression, or for the way completely new characters and storylines can just be added to give a new dimension, surprise and variety. Here everything is as focused as a German car design, sleek and immaculately assembled, making you feel horribly trapped and mesmerised.

2) In the same way, I didn’t, initially, warm to the very obvious prominence of the issues. Right from the start when Nora lies to Torvald about buying the macaroons, when he bombards her with animal pet names, when she plays up to him and insists that he knows best and only he can teach her (‘Oh, everything you do is right,’ p.69) etc, it feels like you’re being hit round the head with a male author’s version of Victorian feminism, with the issue of The New Woman, with the legal and cultural oppression of women, the babying and infantilisation of women, the tyranny of the patriarchy. It feels very manipulative the way all the lines of oppression converge on poor Nora who is not capable of bearing the burden.

3) But then, in the final ten pages, it stopped being a drama and became a manifesto, a piece of agit prop worthy of Brecht. Up till then I found it a bit too calculating to move me. But the blistering denouement of the final pages, as Nora makes her staggeringly unforgiving declaration of independence, blows away any reservations I had. It’s a phenomenal tour de force. You can see how it must have been vastly controversial at the time, and has provided a rallying cry to women readers and audiences ever since. Incredibly powerful and unforgiving, of Nora’s husband, of all men.


Credit

Four Major Plays by Henrik Ibsen, translated by James MacFarlane and Jens Arup, was published by Oxford University Press as a World’s Classic paperback in 1981.

Related links

Ibsen reviews