A Doll’s House
Henrik Ibsen
A Level English Literature
, BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
A Doll’s House was written partly as a reaction to the 19th century melodrama of the Norwegian theatre. Reviewing the
world premiere of the play at The Royal Theatre of Copenhapen (Denmark) on the 21st of December 1879, the Danish
playwright and critic, Erik Boegh wrote:
“ It is beyond memory since a play so simple in its action and so every day in its dress made
such an importance of artistic mastery…Not a single declamatory phrase, no high dramatics,
no drop of blood, not even a tear; never for a moment was the dagger of tragedy
raised…Every needless line is cut, every exchange carries the action a step forward, there is
not a superfluous effect in the whole play…”
To some extent, A Doll’s House follows the concepts outlined in Aristotle’s poetics in creating a play with a small number
of characters, in one unchanging sense and in over a short period of time. In this respect, this follows the ‘classical
unities.’ Unlike classical Greek drama, however, the main one involving Nora, Helmer, and Krogstad and the subplot
covering Mrs Lindt and Krogstad.
In a manner akin to the Greek dramatist, Euripides (5th century BC) Ipsen uses what is often referred to as the
‘retrospective’ method of situation and character delineation. He prefers to begin his tragedy just before the catastrophe
and to use the dialogue to unravel the preceding events in retrospect instead of presenting the actual events on stage.
Well versed in the plot devices of the Scribean ‘well-made play’ Ibsen uses coincidences and revelations of a character’s
past to heighten audience participation but to a very different effect.
e.g The audience is led by a series of hints and ironies to suppose Nora’s dilemma will be
happily resolved: that Helmer will understand her forgery and forgive her, that Mrs Lindt,
will influence Krogstad to not pursue the IOU and even in the final Act, Krogstad’s return of
the IOU will signal the end of Noras predicament.
This constant reversal of the audience’s expectations shows in fact a departure from the conceit of the
‘well-made play# in that Ipsen has no easy, comforting solution to offer.
Often considered to be a feminist tract with its sympathetic portrayal of a woman who refuses to obey her husband,
leaving him, her home and her children, Ipsen both reputes this saying his interest lay in not specific political and social
changes but in a ‘revolution of the spirits of men’ but acknowledges that in his own words ‘there are two kinds of moral
laws, two kinds of conscience, one for men and one quite different for women…a women is judged by masculine law…A
woman cannot be herself in order society…with laws made by men…who assess female conduct from a male conduct.” If
not overtly feminist, these notes made whilst writing A Doll’s House show a real empathy for a woman in a man’s world.
There is a balance in the play however, with all the characters both male and female displaying strength as well as
weakness.
Within the play, Ibsen uses contemporary ideas to dramatic effect: A Doll’s House was published in 1879, Charles
Darwin’s Origins of Species 1859. Ipsen grapples with the debate about whether our lives are shaped by our own free
choices or determined by a combination of our past and environment. It is a debate that is just as relevant today.
Essentially Ipsen champions the idea of individual spirit, integrity and potential in the way he chooses to end the play.
Ipsen’s influence on the writers of his day, particularly the younger ones, belies the unfavourable criticism many of his
plays received. Successive playwrights acknowledge his plays as inspirations to their own: George Burner Chore,
J.M.Synge and Shawn Oh Casy. The latter two named their characters after Nora. Arthur Millers ‘All My Sons’ and ‘Death
of a Salesman’ sho open admiration for Ipsen’s concept of tragedy and both plays make use of Ipsen’s retrospective
technique.
, In Germany, Ipsen’s work encouraged works such as Hauptmann to address themselves to serious social themes
avoiding conventional stereotypes and obligatory happy endings. Drama was no longer considered to be separate from
real life.
ACT ONE
o The stage is set in a comfortable but firmly middle class room as opposed to an aristocratic dwelling in use in popular
theatre at the time.
o The first mention of ‘doors’ is significant. It clearly reflects the cross section of a doll’s house where every little room has
its own door but more importantly it raises the expectation of intrigue. Doors opening and closing with an array of different
characters entering and exiting were the stuff of popular comedy. Feydeau Farce, after the French comedy writer Georges
Feydeau, was based on satirical situations where characters misbehaving sexually were running in and out of hotel
rooms, opening and slamming doors and barely escaping detection. Nearer to home, the late actor Bryan Rix, was famed
for his comedies ‘Laughter from Whitehall’ with its mistaken identity and multiple door trope. The staging of the first Act of
A Doll’s House could be mistaken by the audience as a domestic comedy supported as it is by Nora’s cheerful entrance
and Helmer’s double take, only leaving the study hearing Nora’s ‘brought.’ In fact, first appearances are dramatically
confounded in what follows: the door imagery relates to themes of open and closed possibilities. There are approximately
forty references to doors opening and closing in the stage directions and the dialogues. Most significant dramatically is
that the play begins with a door opening and ends with a door shutting. This is allied to the realisation that Nora has to
ring the doorbell to her own home. She has no key, emphasising her dependency on her husband.
o These negative effects are hidden beneath Nora’s cheerful entrance ‘humming contently to herself’ and ‘she continues to
laugh happily to herself.’ The opening line of the play begins with the word ‘Hide’ which although in the innocent context of
surprising the children, is an ominous beginning. Hiding secrets is the main thrust of the plot in the play.
o Nora’s lack of independence is further developed in Helmer’s interrogation of both her spending and eating habits ‘Has my
little squanderbird been overspending again?’ and ‘Has my little sweet tooth been indulging herself in town today?’ His
inquisition is wrapped up in endearments ‘squanderbird,’ ‘pretty little creature,’ and ‘my darling little songbird’ but the
juxtaposition is sinister: underneath his indulgence of her is a tight control and a deeply unequal status ‘…what an
expensive pet she is for a man to keep.’ ‘Pet’ is a possession and in using it, Helmer reveals his paternalistic attitude to
his wife. She belongs to him and is totally dependent on him. Even his control of her eating shows how he wants to keep
her figure, so he can parade her as a model wife.
o Seemingly light hearted as this banter is, it is symptomatic of their relationship and explains why Nora has to make a
complete renunciation of her life with Helmer at the end of the play.
o The introduction of innocuous secrets, her denial of the macaroons ‘You know I could never act against your wishes’ and
Helmer’s response ‘And you’ve given me your word’ shows the inherent lack of trust between the two. The mistrust over
trivial matters reflects the larger deception: the money to pay for Helmer’s convalesces, a secret that festers and drives
the plot of the play.
o The insulting throwaway line that Nora is ‘just like your father used to be…it’s in your blood’ and ‘yes, yes, yes, these
things are hereditary Nora,’ seems disproportionate to a wife and mother wanting to lavish gifts on her household and
family, and again explains Nora’s course of action at the end of they play: so complete is Helmer’s assumed superiority
through the course of the play that compromise is not enough; Nora has to sever all ties completely and learn to be a
person in her own right.
o In a clever dramatic role reversal, Ibsen’s introduction of Mrs Lindt gives Nora the superior status. The contrast between
the two old school friends is deliberate: it settles the audience who now feel the tension between husband and wife are
minor compared to how life has treated Nora’s friend. Their situations are deeply contrasted: Christina looks much older
than Nora, her marriage was one of convenience not love, she is now a children’s widow and desperately poor. Nora’s life
is secure and happy in comparison.
Henrik Ibsen
A Level English Literature
, BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
A Doll’s House was written partly as a reaction to the 19th century melodrama of the Norwegian theatre. Reviewing the
world premiere of the play at The Royal Theatre of Copenhapen (Denmark) on the 21st of December 1879, the Danish
playwright and critic, Erik Boegh wrote:
“ It is beyond memory since a play so simple in its action and so every day in its dress made
such an importance of artistic mastery…Not a single declamatory phrase, no high dramatics,
no drop of blood, not even a tear; never for a moment was the dagger of tragedy
raised…Every needless line is cut, every exchange carries the action a step forward, there is
not a superfluous effect in the whole play…”
To some extent, A Doll’s House follows the concepts outlined in Aristotle’s poetics in creating a play with a small number
of characters, in one unchanging sense and in over a short period of time. In this respect, this follows the ‘classical
unities.’ Unlike classical Greek drama, however, the main one involving Nora, Helmer, and Krogstad and the subplot
covering Mrs Lindt and Krogstad.
In a manner akin to the Greek dramatist, Euripides (5th century BC) Ipsen uses what is often referred to as the
‘retrospective’ method of situation and character delineation. He prefers to begin his tragedy just before the catastrophe
and to use the dialogue to unravel the preceding events in retrospect instead of presenting the actual events on stage.
Well versed in the plot devices of the Scribean ‘well-made play’ Ibsen uses coincidences and revelations of a character’s
past to heighten audience participation but to a very different effect.
e.g The audience is led by a series of hints and ironies to suppose Nora’s dilemma will be
happily resolved: that Helmer will understand her forgery and forgive her, that Mrs Lindt,
will influence Krogstad to not pursue the IOU and even in the final Act, Krogstad’s return of
the IOU will signal the end of Noras predicament.
This constant reversal of the audience’s expectations shows in fact a departure from the conceit of the
‘well-made play# in that Ipsen has no easy, comforting solution to offer.
Often considered to be a feminist tract with its sympathetic portrayal of a woman who refuses to obey her husband,
leaving him, her home and her children, Ipsen both reputes this saying his interest lay in not specific political and social
changes but in a ‘revolution of the spirits of men’ but acknowledges that in his own words ‘there are two kinds of moral
laws, two kinds of conscience, one for men and one quite different for women…a women is judged by masculine law…A
woman cannot be herself in order society…with laws made by men…who assess female conduct from a male conduct.” If
not overtly feminist, these notes made whilst writing A Doll’s House show a real empathy for a woman in a man’s world.
There is a balance in the play however, with all the characters both male and female displaying strength as well as
weakness.
Within the play, Ibsen uses contemporary ideas to dramatic effect: A Doll’s House was published in 1879, Charles
Darwin’s Origins of Species 1859. Ipsen grapples with the debate about whether our lives are shaped by our own free
choices or determined by a combination of our past and environment. It is a debate that is just as relevant today.
Essentially Ipsen champions the idea of individual spirit, integrity and potential in the way he chooses to end the play.
Ipsen’s influence on the writers of his day, particularly the younger ones, belies the unfavourable criticism many of his
plays received. Successive playwrights acknowledge his plays as inspirations to their own: George Burner Chore,
J.M.Synge and Shawn Oh Casy. The latter two named their characters after Nora. Arthur Millers ‘All My Sons’ and ‘Death
of a Salesman’ sho open admiration for Ipsen’s concept of tragedy and both plays make use of Ipsen’s retrospective
technique.
, In Germany, Ipsen’s work encouraged works such as Hauptmann to address themselves to serious social themes
avoiding conventional stereotypes and obligatory happy endings. Drama was no longer considered to be separate from
real life.
ACT ONE
o The stage is set in a comfortable but firmly middle class room as opposed to an aristocratic dwelling in use in popular
theatre at the time.
o The first mention of ‘doors’ is significant. It clearly reflects the cross section of a doll’s house where every little room has
its own door but more importantly it raises the expectation of intrigue. Doors opening and closing with an array of different
characters entering and exiting were the stuff of popular comedy. Feydeau Farce, after the French comedy writer Georges
Feydeau, was based on satirical situations where characters misbehaving sexually were running in and out of hotel
rooms, opening and slamming doors and barely escaping detection. Nearer to home, the late actor Bryan Rix, was famed
for his comedies ‘Laughter from Whitehall’ with its mistaken identity and multiple door trope. The staging of the first Act of
A Doll’s House could be mistaken by the audience as a domestic comedy supported as it is by Nora’s cheerful entrance
and Helmer’s double take, only leaving the study hearing Nora’s ‘brought.’ In fact, first appearances are dramatically
confounded in what follows: the door imagery relates to themes of open and closed possibilities. There are approximately
forty references to doors opening and closing in the stage directions and the dialogues. Most significant dramatically is
that the play begins with a door opening and ends with a door shutting. This is allied to the realisation that Nora has to
ring the doorbell to her own home. She has no key, emphasising her dependency on her husband.
o These negative effects are hidden beneath Nora’s cheerful entrance ‘humming contently to herself’ and ‘she continues to
laugh happily to herself.’ The opening line of the play begins with the word ‘Hide’ which although in the innocent context of
surprising the children, is an ominous beginning. Hiding secrets is the main thrust of the plot in the play.
o Nora’s lack of independence is further developed in Helmer’s interrogation of both her spending and eating habits ‘Has my
little squanderbird been overspending again?’ and ‘Has my little sweet tooth been indulging herself in town today?’ His
inquisition is wrapped up in endearments ‘squanderbird,’ ‘pretty little creature,’ and ‘my darling little songbird’ but the
juxtaposition is sinister: underneath his indulgence of her is a tight control and a deeply unequal status ‘…what an
expensive pet she is for a man to keep.’ ‘Pet’ is a possession and in using it, Helmer reveals his paternalistic attitude to
his wife. She belongs to him and is totally dependent on him. Even his control of her eating shows how he wants to keep
her figure, so he can parade her as a model wife.
o Seemingly light hearted as this banter is, it is symptomatic of their relationship and explains why Nora has to make a
complete renunciation of her life with Helmer at the end of the play.
o The introduction of innocuous secrets, her denial of the macaroons ‘You know I could never act against your wishes’ and
Helmer’s response ‘And you’ve given me your word’ shows the inherent lack of trust between the two. The mistrust over
trivial matters reflects the larger deception: the money to pay for Helmer’s convalesces, a secret that festers and drives
the plot of the play.
o The insulting throwaway line that Nora is ‘just like your father used to be…it’s in your blood’ and ‘yes, yes, yes, these
things are hereditary Nora,’ seems disproportionate to a wife and mother wanting to lavish gifts on her household and
family, and again explains Nora’s course of action at the end of they play: so complete is Helmer’s assumed superiority
through the course of the play that compromise is not enough; Nora has to sever all ties completely and learn to be a
person in her own right.
o In a clever dramatic role reversal, Ibsen’s introduction of Mrs Lindt gives Nora the superior status. The contrast between
the two old school friends is deliberate: it settles the audience who now feel the tension between husband and wife are
minor compared to how life has treated Nora’s friend. Their situations are deeply contrasted: Christina looks much older
than Nora, her marriage was one of convenience not love, she is now a children’s widow and desperately poor. Nora’s life
is secure and happy in comparison.
