ABSTRACT !e Disenchantment of the Wonderful - A Doll’s House and the Idealist Imagination The Disenchantment of the During the course of the nineteenth century, the notion of imagination under- went a radical rede$nition. From being the highest, divine, power of man to Wonderful - A Doll’s House and being subjected to a growing pathologization and degradation, the rede$nition of imagination played a central role in the transition from idealism and roman- the Idealist Imagination ticism to the emerging modernism and realism. Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House (1879) may be read into this particular context with its ‘disenchantment’ of the ‘wonderful’ – a word which Georg Brandes termed the very keyword of roman- ticism. ULLA KALLENBACH Focusing on the speci$c Scandinavian context, where idealist aesthetics contin- ued to be particularly strong, I will examine A Doll’s House from the perspective of the contemporary spectator in the context of an on-going Nordic aesthetic Its famous afterlife as a trailblazing feminist play has resentation of the characters of Nora and Helmer. dispute. !e contemporary Scandinavian reviews will serve to bear evidence of somewhat overshadowed a view of A Doll’s House as Idealism runs as an underlying current that this dispute. In the article, I analyse how the play thematizes imagination and a response to the era that preceded it. When A Doll’s dominates the century stretching from Immanuel employs recurrent references to idealist culture in order to disenchant the ro- House was $rst performed at the Royal !eatre in Kant’s so-called “Copernican revolution” to the mantic imagination of the wonderful. !e analysis will focus in particular on the Copenhagen, 21 December 1879, it was not only modern breakthrough. !e context of Idealism in representation of the characters of Nora and Helmer, but also comes to implicate Nora’s famous exit that was debated. More than relation to Ibsen has been explored in Toril Moi’s the spectator of the play. solely a feminist attack on a patriarchal, authoritar- Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism (2006). ian society, the play was – also – seen as a confron- Moi, in her analysis, focuses on German Idealism, Keywords: imagination, Henrik Ibsen, Idealism, Romanticism, philosophy. tation with the romantic, idealist culture that had especially that of Friedrich Schiller. !e Scandina- dominated the nineteenth century. In the following, vian context is distinct, however, from the Europe- I will seek to examine A Doll’s House from the per- an in its strong focus on the idyllic and harmonic. spective of the contemporary spectator in the con- Furthermore, Scandinavian Idealism was incarnated text of an on-going Scandinavian aesthetic and ide- in various forms such as the natural philosophy of ological dispute concerning the transition between Henrich Ste#ens (1773-1845), the National Ro- the romantic idealist and the modern conception of manticism of “Nordic Poet King” Adam Oehlen- imagination that took place in the nineteenth cen- schläger (1779-1850), and in the Hegelian aesthet- tury. !e course of the nineteenth century had seen ics of authoritarian arbiter of taste Johan Ludvig a drastic ideological and aesthetic re-evaluation, and Heiberg (1791-1860). !e current of Idealism bore the notion of imagination played a central part in a strong in"uence, permeating aesthetic, religious this process. It thus seems relevant to look closer at and philosophical thought. Even in the late 1870s, how this rede$nition of imagination is adressed in idealist aesthetics was still dominant. !is was also this play, which deals with many aspects of imagi- evident in the theatrical repertoire. BIOGRAPHY nation such as make-believe, pretence, masquerad- In the following, I will $rst introduce key aspects ing and, notably, the collapse of the fantasy of the of imagination in a Scandinavian idealist context, Ulla Kallenbach holds a PhD (2014) in Arts and Cultural Studies from the Uni- “wonderful”. and the reversal in the appraisal of imagination as versity of Copenhagen, Denmark, where she is currently External Lecturer. She Consulting the Danish and Norwegian reviews illustrated e.g. in Georg Brandes’ illustrative analy- received her MA in Text and Performance in 2005 (Royal Academy of Dramatic of the publication and Scandinavian premieres of sis of Oehlenschläger’s play Aladdin or the Wonderful Arts (RADA) / King’s College London) and an MA in !eater Studies in 2007 the play will bear evidence of this ideological and Lamp (Aladdin, eller Den forunderlige Lampe, 1805) (University of Copenhagen) with the prize dissertation Space and Visuality in the aesthetic dispute, being as they are both observers and Ibsen’s Peer Gynt (1867). !is will provide the Drama Text. Her primary $elds of research deal with the cultural history of im- of and partakers in the cultural debate, as well as background for an analysis of imagination in A agination in philosophy and drama as well as various aspects of dramaturgy. She provide us with a view of the play’s impact on its au- Doll’s House, where I argue that a similar reversal is a board member of the Association of Nordic !eatre Scholars and is presently dience. !ese reviews provide the starting point of can be observed. the Co-Editor of Nordic !eatre Studies. my analysis of the play, which will focus on the rep- [email protected]

76 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 77 THE IDEALIST IMAGINATION accessing a truth beyond the truth, that of reason. concept of the idealist imagination had been signif- bliss and cause of his genius; it is Per Gynt’s misery !e concept of imagination has long been an over- !us, in 1833, Norwegian poet Nicolai Wergeland icantly contested, especially in the latter part of the and causes his wretchedness. !e very same power, looked aspect in studies of both performance and (1780-1848) wrote in a defence of his son Henrik nineteenth century. which to Oehlenschläger is truth and life, is to Ibsen of the drama text and a precise de$nition of imag- Wergeland’s (1808-45) poetry: “A sublime Imagina- the lie that evades life.”13 ination is still elusive. Originially derived from the tion! !ree or four, in a prosaic sense widely di#er- Imagination has, states Brandes, been entirely Latin imaginatio (of imago, image) translated from ent, objects in one merging, to be conceived by the FROM ALADDIN TO PEER GYNT reevaluated: “for the same, which in Aladdin is the Greek Phantasia (of phantazein, making visible, same capacity that created it, by Imagination, but !e Romantic veneration of the poetic genius was beautiful dream is in Per Gynt the loathsome de- phantasma, mental representation), imagination impossibly by Reason.”3 later analysed by Georg Brandes (1842-1927) in his lusion.”14 !e opposition that Brandes sets up here had since Aristotle, whose in"uence was strikingly For Idealism, imagination was a means of con- 1886 essay on Adam Oehlenschläger and his ori- between Aladdin and Peer Gynt is illustrative of the durable, signi$ed a capacity to form mental images necting with the ideal, an ideal reality, free from the entalist play, Aladdin or the Wonderful Lamp (Alad- development in the understanding of imagination and was thus conceived as a reproductive faculty, constraints of the material reality, which was only din, eller Den forunderlige Lampe, 1805). Aladdin, that took place in the nineteenth century. From which “mirrored” the sensible world in mental im- a faint re"ection of the ideal. Hence, also the Ro- to Brandes, represented not only the foundation wonderful dream and ideal truth to pathologization, ages. In the context of Idealism and Romanticism, mantic fascination with the exotic and fantastic . In upon which Danish literature in the $rst half of the fantastical escapism and illusory lies, from worship however, the concept of imagination has a speci$c idealist aesthetics, art goes beyond mere representa- nineteenth century was built. It was the foundation to degradation, imagination underwent a radical cultural and ideological signi$cance as a productive tion; accordingly, Danish philosopher F. C. Sibbern of Danish cultural life as such – nothing less than rede$nition where the relation of imagination and or creative force of man, as suggested in the German (1785-1872) can describe a “double idealization” in the “the poetic bible” of an entire era.9 Stating that, reality was turned upside down. And the light of terms Einbildungskraft or Vorstellungskraft. Rather which the Ideal is represented in an ideal manner.4 “[i]n the common view, Aladdin signi$es […] the the lamp became connected with diversion rath- than a mirror, imagination would be conceived as An idea which we also $nd in the works of one of enthronement of Imagination”10 Brandes de$nes er than revelation. A key term is fantasteri, which a “lamp”; a force of divine origin casting its inner the most in"uential and dominant $gures in Danish the romantic imagination as “the poetic inven- can be translated as delusion or reverie, the fan- light onto its object.1 theatre and cultural life of the Golden Age, Johan tiveness”, the free, creative invention that was “the tast being the escapist, or the dreamer, disengaged It was precisely the concept of imagination, Ein- Ludvig Heiberg, whose adoptation of Hegelian aes- watchword of Romanticism”.11 When describing with real life. !is was the topic of Danish writer bildungskraft, which was at the heart of Kant’s “Co- thetics had a marked emphasis on unity, idealization the in"uence of the $gure of Aladdin in Danish Hans Egede Schack’s (1820-59) novel !e Phantasts pernican revolution”, which was launched with the and harmonization. Principally, this was to be made culture, Brandes chose the image of light, not only (Phantasterne, 1857), a story of the coming of age of Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Here Kant rede$ned visible in the formal qualities of the artwork, the of a lamp, but of a gigantic lighthouse to describe three young men, facing the negative consequenses imagination as a productive force, a transcenden- conformance of the in$nite with the $nite, which the immense impact of Oehlenschläger’s character: of fantasying, from childhood’s playful fantasies to tal power. Hence, imagination would become rec- should be “Reality idealised, since it would other- “!ere he stands, this Aladdin, with the radiant adulthoods erotic fantasies and escapism, the patho- ognized as the essential prerequisite of knowledge. wise not be poetry”.5 lamp held high in his hand, the formative $gure logical imagination and the inevitable confronta- In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant would also set With the veneration of the ideality of art, it, like of Denmark’s entire intellectual life in this century, tion with the demands of reality. up a fundamental rift between subject and object. religion, becomes a means of re$ning man. !us, like a gigantic light-bearing statue illuminating the Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) was one of the !e subject can never experience an object as it is, for Oehlenscläger, the purpose of art is to nurture entrance to a harbour.”12 While Brandes did hold $rst philosophers to contest the idealist imagina- “Das Ding an sich”, but only as it is experienced, i.e. the soul: “to give nourishment to the soul by a true Aladdin in high regard, his analysis places it in a tion, arguing: “!e fantastic is generally that which as processed by the mind. !e imagination would holy Communion.”6 A view that was reiterated at context of which he is markedly critical, namely the leads a person out into the in$nite in such a way be the central medium for allowing this process to the celebration of Oehlenschläger’s 100th birthday context of Romanticism and Idealism. Accordingly, that it only leads him away from himself and there- occur, not only in reproducing sensory experience, on 14 November 1879, in philosopher Professor, the character of Aladdin, in Brandes’ perspective, is by prevents him from coming back to himself.”15 but in synthesizing sensation and understanding, Dr. Rasmus Nielsen’s (1809- 84) commemorative also the personi$cation of the naïve, free poetic spir- !e imagination, so to speak, becomes a "icker- producing the “rules” allowing for the comprehen- speech: “It is the Poet’s Word, the Word of Imagi- it that is characteristic of Danish as well as Nordic ing light that leads man astray, leading him away sion of experience. nation that gives wings to the Soul”.7 Art was thus Biedermeier Romanticism. from himself. Kierkegaard too, de$nes imagination !is rede$nition of imagination would later a vehicle, or “lamp” as described above, for letting While we should be cautious of Brandes’ bias, (Indbildningskraft) as idealization, as “the faculty of allow for the Romantic, Idealist veneration of the the divine light of the ideal shine out onto the be- the reversal in the view of imagination that he de- representing perfection (idealization)”.16 However, genius, since only the (poetic) natural genius was holder. !e idea of a divine relation between ideality scribes is notable. !e counter-$gure to Aladdin since imagination is idealization it is alluring and believed to be able to exercise the full potentials of and art was thus still persistent when A Doll’s House Brandes found in the plays of Ibsen, in particu- therefore deceptive. While imagination can be a imagination. Only the genius could, through these was $rst performed. Accordingly, Norwegian pro- lar in Peer Gynt: “!e polar opposite to Aladdin positive force in its potential to save man from the potentials, access the ideal world of in$nity. In the fessor and theologian Fredrik Petersen (1839-1909) is Per Gynt [sic]. Like Aladdin is the glori$cation pains of reality, there lies a danger in the liability of Idealist aesthetics, the purpose of art is to reveal a in his review stated: “Art is a child of the human of imagination, Per Gynt is the declaration of war losing touch with reality and one’s inner, true life higher truth, the ideal that lies beyond mere percep- being’s creative gift in its highest ideality, the gift against it. To Oehlenschläger the life of imagination altogether. Further, precisely because imagination tion.2 Imagination was thus considered capable of which takes him closest to divinity.”8 However, the is the grandest, to Ibsen the most dangerous and in- can only idealize, its shortcomings become evident deed degrading of all. !e imagination is Aladdin’s when dealing with the su#erings of everyday life:

78 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 79 “but su#ering, on the other hand, is something the A DOLL’S HOUSE BETWEEN REACTIONARY THE DISENCHANTMENT OF IMAGINATION premiere, which featured $gures of Goethe, Schiller imagination cannot represent, except in a rendering IDEALISM AND PROGRESSIVE REALISM In this context of an on-going cultural polemic the and Ole Bull as well as Raphael’s Sistine Madonna. which represents it as already perfected (idealized), !e view of the play as a confrontation with the aes- characters of Nora and Helmer were seen as sym- !e Christmas tree too was a potent social symbol that is, softened, toned-down, foreshortened.”17 !e thetic and ideological values of the nineteenth cen- bols of recognizable societal characters, as observed that also had speci$c Idealist connotations.33 wording here is in signi$cant contrast to the ro- tury is also evident in the Scandinavian reviews of by Vullum: “Helmer and Nora are individual $g- It was, however, a home with an attractiveness mantic conception of imagination as an emanating, A Doll’s House.23 As Edvard Brandes (1847-1931), ures, but at the same time they are typical and more that reviewers recognized as a surface only, disen- complete perfection. !e ideal that imagination brother of Georg Brandes, wrote: “A Doll’s House is than typical. !ere is something symbolic in them gaged with reality, as described by Vullum: “Lawyer produces is, in fact, imperfection, since “the imagi- a contribution to the strife between the reactionar- and about them, Helmer is an expression of exter- Helmer is a typical representative for what we ordi- nary picture, that is, the picture which the imagina- ies in Denmark-Norway and progressive literature. nal, vacuous authority, Nora is the opposition that narily understand by beauty; but with him, beauty tion presents and $xes, is after all, in a certain sense, It is a strike against those who believe that they can breaks with this external authority, and however is merely another expression of outward glitter, and unreality, it lacks the reality of time and duration con$ne poetry within the barriers of conventional well this is covered, its symbolism eventually an- that is the meaning of the word in most people’s and of the earthly life with its di%culties and suf- morality.”24 It was a blatant attack on social, cul- nounces itself in our thoughts.”30 mouths. Beauty means the quasi-aristocratic with- ferings”.18 tural, religious and aesthetic values as such, here !is symbolic dichotomy was also suggested drawal from the world with its needs, reality and !e imagination of the Romantic Idealism be- described by liberal journalist Erik Vullum (1859- in the Danish casting. !e world’s $rst Nora was democracy, beauty is life among attractively bound came, as it were disenchanted. !is disenchantment 1916): “A Doll’s House is the individual’s opposition played by Betty Hennings (1850-1939), famous and tame books, Persian carpets, lamps and cande- also comes to mark the end of an ideological era, against the demands of traditional religion and the for her repertoire of the ‘stock character’ Leonora, labra […]. To embroider is lovelier than to knit, as as Prophessor in Philosophy Richard Kearney de- way society is organised, carried out with a ruthless the ingénue of Ludvig Holberg’s comedies. To the Helmer says. But it is this interpretation of beau- scribes it: “!e collapse of imagination’s dream be- consequence which has never before been seen in contemporary spectator, this background was rec- ty, nobility and life’s values that Henrik Ibsen has fore the encroaching realities of historical existence, our literature.”25 ognised in the initial childish characterization of tried to break down in A Doll’s House.”34 It should is the point where romantic idealism ends and exis- A Doll’s House became part of an on-going ide- Nora, but stood in stark contrast to the determined, be noted here, how the reviewer exactly voices the tentialism begins.”19 ological polemic in which the reviewers were far mature Nora of Act III.31 In contrast, the role of dichotomy between on the one hand ideal, re$ned !e initial wave of enthusiasm for imagination from neutral observers, but rather active partak- Torvald Helmer was portrayed by Emil Pouls- and notably disengaged beauty, which he sees as the inevitably led to an equal disillusionment. !e “ex- ers. For the progressive advocates of realism, these en (1842-1911), a classic romantic actor. Torvald standard, public attitude or life value, and on the travagant claims for man’s creative power”20 that the values were the ideas of the times gone by;26 val- Helmer is the personi$cation of the idealist aes- other hand the call by Ibsen for a cessation of this romantic imagination had declared simply stood in ues which for the opponents of the play were still thete; noble, of high moral standards and re$ned view. such contrast to the modern industrialised, post-rev- wholly of the present.27 What the positive reviewers taste. Traits that Poulsen emphasized in his portray- For those in favour of the play, Helmer was ex- olutionary reality that it could not be upheld. As commended was precisely what the negative review- al of Helmer. Appearances and aesthetics, to Helm- posed as the personi$cation of egoism. For Helmer, Prophessor Richard Sha explains it, “one key reason ers condemned. So, while the favourable reviewers er, are key, already as layed out in Ibsen’s opening Nora is not only a doll, or a toy, but an ideal dream why the imagination became pathologized was its praised the triumph of realism and thus the defeat stage directions. His home is carefully decorated: or fantasy in which he takes pleasure and pride. !e potential to turn the mind within, away from en- of Romantic Idealism, the critics reproached it. At carpeted "oors, engravings, books in $ne bindings ideal that he sees in Nora is, however, nothing but a gagement with the world”.21 the one end of the spectrum stood Helmer, along and the piano, an expensive item in the lawyer’s re"ection of himself. He is infatuated with her beau- !e relation between the real and the ideal thus with ‘the Helmers’ of the bourgeois society, as femi- bourgeois home. !e Danish world premiere, di- ty rather than in love with her. He will not have her becomes reversed and the ideal replaced by the im- nist author Amalie Skram (1846-1905) wrote in her rected by H. P. Holst (1811-93), emphasized the eating macaroons lest they damage her teeth. She aginary, as an escapist inferior sphere that is in sharp review,28 the authority, the upholder of the idealist aesthetic idealism even further by displaying a bust must dress up, play the part. !is, Nora has done to contrast with reality. Accordingly, the relation of art tenets; at the other end Nora, the child coming of of Venus in Helmer’s bookcase and engravings of perfection, playing the role of the ideal wife, cater- to reality is reversed too. In 1901, Brandes would age, rebelling against these principles; principles romantic icons such as Beethoven and Mozart (the ing for Helmer’s idealist tastes. Behind this fantasy describe this reversal of imagination as follows: “For which were still far from defeated. As theatre histo- quintessential Aladdinesque prodigy) hung over the lies a desire for authority. Helmer shapes Nora in a long time and in many countries imagination was rian Robert Neiiendam expressed it: “Ibsen stroke piano. Above these images hung a copy of Raphael’s his image. regarded as a kind of giant spider which out of itself hard, because he cut in living "esh.”29 Sistine Madonna (!e Madonna Standing on Clouds !e theme of masquerading, the imagining and spun $gments of the brain in all sorts of beautiful So what principles and ideas did Ibsen strike with SS. Sixtus and Barbara, 1513-14), a painting, performing of roles and scenarios, lies recurrent $gures; now it is probably rather conceived as a out against and how does this relate to the concep- which had reached a cult-like status in Romanti- throughout the play.35 !e third act masquerade at plant that draws all its nourishment from the earth tion of imagination? In the following, I will analyse cism where it signi$ed a particular poetic spirit of di- Stenborg’s, obviously, takes on a pivotal role, the end wherein only it thrives: the poet’s observations and how the play thematizes imagination and employs vine inspiration.32 Further, mahogany furniture and of the masquerade marking the beginning of the ca- experiences.”22 No longer can art be conceived as recurrent references to idealist culture in order to gilded branched candlesticks, statues and $gurines tastrophe. But throughout the play, masquerading conveying an otherworldly ideal, but must take its ‘disenchant’ the romantic imagination, focusing in along with a second bookcase with sheets of music lies as the core of Helmer’s and Nora’s marriage, inspiration from the real life that the artist observes particular on the representation of the characters of also served to establish a home of re$ned taste. A where Nora must take heed that there may come a and, e.g. in Brandes’ aesthetics, debates. Nora and Helmer. similar strategy could be observed in the Swedish time when the masquerade is over, “when he’s lost

80 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 81 interest in watching me dance, or get dressed up, or ards, in their control. Here, via the activation of the an excellent doll that everybody plays with – until play, again gives us a direct reference to the world recite.”36 Nora plays the parts of $rst daughter then imagination, the spectator’s perspective is set up as they get bored with it, and the doll is thrown into a of Romanticism and Idealism. !us writes Brandes, wife, as an actress adhering to the demands of the analogous to Helmer’s. corner, forgotten by all. But you should let nobody paraphrasing a German study by Hermann Petrich metteur-en-scène, $rst for her father then Helmer. Nora, in light of Brandes’ analysis of Aladdin, play with you. You should respect yourself, when (1845-1933): “!erefore, Romanticism is fond She lies to Helmer and "irts with Dr. Rank to keep may be seen as an “Aladdinesque” character, char- you want others to respect you.”40 By performing in of all direct and indirect terms for the wonderful. up the appearance of the role that they desire her to acterized by Dr. Rank as a lykkebarn – (neither Mc- a marriage of $ction and fantasies rather than an au- Such words are: fantastic, admirable [German: play or to present the image that they wish to see in Farlane’s translation “Lady Luck” (p. 72) nor Fjel- thentic marriage, Nora has indeed become the doll, bewundernswert], eternal; secret, secretive, holy, her. She must wear her dresses like costumes, put on de’s “Charmed life” (p. 102)38 manage to capture a doll that Helmer rejects precisely when she can heavenly, mysterious, enchanting, enigmatic; un- the act of the squirrel, the skylark, the spendthrift, the Aladdinesque reference in the literal meaning no longer play the part. In a Kierkegaardian sense, imaginable, spontaneous, unknown; in$nite, in- little Nora; she must put herself on show and dance “lucky-child” or “child of fortune”) – naïve and im- Helmer and Nora live in the “imaginative intuition” visible, inexpressible; strange, amazing, wonderful, in public for Helmer. pulsive and with a childlike ignorance of the crime (Phantasi-anskuelsen),41 rather than in authentic miraculous. – Wonder, wondering, marvel, miracle, Nora’s dancing, to Helmer, is an aesthetic fantasy. she has committed.39 Nora is idealistic, too. She lives. miracle-working, "ower-of-wonder, wunderkind.”45 “!e sensuality he shows at night is also that of the $rmly, and rather childishly, believes in Torvald’s !e ideals and standards that Helmer – and !us we may see Ibsen’s breakdown of the wonder- aesthetician: she is adorned, beauti$ed and appeals ideals and in her fantasy of “det vidunderlige”, “the Nora – imagine as his principal qualities are false. ful as a semantic deconstruction of the language of to his fantasy as a stranger,” wrote Edvard Brandes wonderful”, that will happen when Torvald will rise Helmer conjures up fantasies of himself risking his Romanticism. in his review.37 !e dance that Nora rehearses in to save her in her hour of need. !e Aladdinesque in life in rescuing Nora from an imminent danger: It was this romantic world that Helmer and view of the audience and later performs at the up- Nora is, however, of a subversive nature. Nora lies, “Oh, my darling wife, I can’t hold you close enough. Nora had cherished in their marriage: wonderful stairs masquerade out of view is the tarantella. Being deceives and manipulates. Although her motives for You know, Nora… many’s the time I wish you were ideals, secret fantasies, enchanting exotic dances, an idealised expression of the essence of the Italian forging her father’s signature may have been out of threatened by some terrible danger so I could risk holy mother- and wifehood. Ibsen in A Doll’s House sensuality and vitality of peasant life, the tarantella love for Helmer, the afterlife of her crime has been everything, body and soul for your sake.” (p. 74). exposes the notion of the wonderful as an illusion in the nineteenth century was laden with cultural, veiled in pretence, the “fantasteri”, in which she has However, when the fantasy turns reality, Helmer’s which is not inherent in, and indeed has nothing to aesthetic and historical connotations. In the public taken such great pleasure. She takes pride in the idealism is exposed as a mask, and he a cynical do with, reality. For both Nora and Helmer, the ide- imagination, the tarantella was the quintessential work that she has performed, hidden from Helmer. “monster of egotism” as Herman Bang (1857-1912) als that they had set up for themselves are exposed fantasy of idyllic merriment of the imaginary Italy She $nds dignity in knowing that it was she who characterized him.42 !e Romantic hero that Nora as $gments of the imagination. that, amongst others, August Bournonville (1805- saved him. Such is her attraction to the game of pre- so desires to see in Helmer fails to come to her res- Deception is a trait that lies at the core not only 79) portrayed in his ballets, and which had become tence that she will rather keep up the illusion than cue. As Bang writes: “‘!e wonderful’ to Nora is of Helmer and Nora, but of every single character identical with Italy itself. A fantasy, which in Nora’s go to Torvald – whom she loves and, at least so she the ideal, and her ideal is again the true marriage.”43 of the play. In Krogstad’s forgery, Rank’s hidden rehearsal is the exact opposite: namely a desperate says, fully trusts will save and protect her – when “!e wonderful”, does not happen. Helmer thinks feelings for Nora, Kristine’s marriage to a man she misperformance in face of the encroaching realities, Krogstad threatens to reveal her crime. Perhaps, we only of saving himself. Instead, Helmer’s “spiritual didn’t love. !e only exception is found in the char- a tarantella characterized by a kind of savageness in- might wonder, is it as much the illusion of Helmer’s wretchedness” is exposed: “and when we then slowly acter of the nurse with her real a#ection for Nora, compatible with Helmer’s idealistic aestheticism. In ideals as the illusion of the nobility of her crime that but surely see this veil of decency fall, the monster despite the desperate circumstances that forced her Nora’a misperformance of the tarantalla on stage, she does not want exposed? of egotism uncovered and the mask come o#, so to leave her own daughter. !e reality of A Doll’s the idealized Italian fantasy is subverted for Helmer For an answer, we may look to Mrs Johanne that we see Helmer’s spiritual wretchedness, then House is not a world of wonders and ideals, but a and the spectators alike. Luise Heiberg’s (1812-90) essay “Is the Art of Act- the poet will have achieved his goal, exactly because, painful and ruthless world where mothers leave !e unseen, but audible, and therefore neverthe- ing a Morally Justi$ed Art?” (Er skuespilkunsten en by making the wretchedness bourgeois decent, he their children and where ideals are only masques. less present tarantella that Nora performs at Sten- moralsk berettiget kunst?) where Mrs Heiberg em- forces us to see ourselves in the guise of !orvald borg’s masquerade is, in contrast, an aesthetically phasizes the need for the female actress to keep up Helmer.”44 In the failure of Helmer, the backbone of pleasing tarantella, ‘Helmer’s’ tarantella. For Helm- her everyday role as housewife in order to maintain Idealism, the ideal of truth and decency is broken, NORA HAS LEFT THE BUILDING er, the aestheticised tarantella is the representation her human dignity and individuality so as to not be and signi$cantly, as Bang notes, the failure of Helm- For both positive and negative reviewers, the third and arousal of his fantasies and desires. !e Nora lost in the theatre’s world of imagination: “To make er points to the audience. act of the play – and in particular its conclusion that Helmer desires is imaginary, an image, an ide- a home, that is a mission, of which no woman may When Helmer fails to ful$l her fantasy of the – was deeply problematic. !ey simply found the alised erotic fantasy: “It’s because I’m pretending we let herself miss out on, whatever her spiritual talents wonderful, Nora must see her ideals that she had sudden development of Nora’s character to be too are secretly in love, secretly engaged and nobody may lead her to, for no mission for the woman is imagined in Helmer and their marriage, her ideal drastic. !e psychological development from the suspects there is anything between us.” (p. 70). By greater than that. If she achieves this alongside any of the wonderful fall to pieces. !e magical roman- childlike wife to the woman leaving her husband letting this idealized fantasy remain, scenically, to be art, to which she submits herself, then she can, even tic idea, the wonderful, is exposed by Ibsen not as was unrealistic and unexplainable, and the idea of imagined, it also becomes the spectator’s tarantella as an actress, fully preserve her human dignity, her an ideal, but as an illusion. !e wonderful, a word Nora leaving her children was – in the harshest as much as it is Helmer’s – to their aesthetic stand- individuality; if she gives this up, then she becomes which in various forms is repeated throughout the criticism – even unnatural. Nora does not leave her

82 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 83 home in a state of bewildered confusion or hysteria, slam in the face of an audience accustomed to the cal and scienti$c advances, the academic focus shift- which could be psychologically justi$ed, but rath- ideals of a harmless theatre for the ‘Helmers’; a the- ed from philosophy to science. Indeed, there would er in an inexplicable calm and composed state, as atre of delightful vaudevilles and idyllic ballets built be no substantial study devoted to the subject of im- the reviewer with the signature G. describes it: “It on Idealist aesthetics. !at this slamming door, this agination until 1936 with the publication of Jean- is di%cult to understand why the playwright in this irreconcilable ending provoked such scandal only Paul Sartre’s L’imagination. In Sartre’s view, imagi- $nal part of the play lets Nora act with this calm suggests that in the Scandinavian context realism nation was to be radically conceived as an essential con$dence and superiority when facing her hus- was only in embryo. !e many questions left unan- nothingness. On the stage, however, imagination band instead of, what would seem more natural, to swered by Ibsen were to be answered by the imag- was soon to be revived with symbolist drama, in- let her – exactly in a state of haziness and uneasi- ination of the spectator, and it is my proposal that cluding the later dramas by Ibsen himself, and thus, ness – take the step that she does, in despair over these answers should be found in the reality of the the disenchanted imagination became a reimagined having been deceived in her ‘unerring’ belief in her spectators, in the on-going aesthetic and ideological imagination. husband’s love.”46 transition, rather than exclusively within the limits Seeing Nora and Helmer as representations of of the $ctive universe. !at it is up to the specta- decaying idealism and awakening individualism tor to mature and seize the confrontation that our or realism, rather than wholly psychologically mo- anonymous reviewer lacks in Nora. tivated characters, and the play as a confrontation If Peer Gynt was “the lie that evades life”,50 as between two struggling ideological positions, the Georg Brandes stated, Nora may be seen as the play’s conclusion may be less inexplicable. Reviewer disrobed lie that leaves the world of imagination, P. Hansen employs a quote from Kierkegaard’s Ei- fantasteriet, delusion, to enter life – as imagined by ther/Or (Enten/Eller, 1843) to describe the essence the spectator. !e hope of salvation that A Doll’s of Nora’s ultimate choice: “When all around me House o#ers lies in the potential rebirth of Nora as has become still, solemn as a starlit night, when the a free-thinking and educated individual: and with soul is all alone in the world, there appears before that, the suggestion of a hope for the resurgence it not a distinguished person, but the eternal power of society. Even positive reviewers, such as Edvard itself. It is as though the heavens parted, and the I Brandes, had, however, little hope for such a turn: chooses itself – or, more correctly, it accepts itself. “Predictions are always silly, but I still dare to pre- !e soul has then seen the highest, which no mor- dict that A Doll’s House will not become a box-of- tal eye can see and which never can be forgotten. $ce success. It is too serious. Our aesthetic audience !e personality receives the accolade of knighthood will praise the Helmerian views, and $nd the play which ennobles it for an eternity.”47 According to P. unlovely and immoral. Henrik Ibsen must console Hansen, Nora makes a leap towards the ethical stage himself with the fact that he has created a power- in her decision to make a choice that is true to her- ful work of art of a shocking truth.”51 !e corre- self “and precisely therefore do the Ideals commend spondence of so-called ‘Helmerian views’ and the her choice”.48 Note here how standards of Idealism (aesthetic) views of the audience should once more are still an authority even to Ibsen’s supporters. !e be noted. development of the character of Nora has not come Analyzing A Doll’s House as both a commentary full circle, it is an awakening, and her education is on a budding Scandinavian aesthetic and ideological only in its beginning. Nora is not an emancipated argument of a waning and an emerging concept of woman but a child, albeit a matured child, when imagination exposeses a marked positioning of the she leaves Helmer. !us writes an anonymous re- spectator, who is, on the one hand, confronted with viewer: “It is very much a $ne psychological point the exposing of the wonderful – the ideal – as an that she, with no hesitation, lets the decision de- illusion and the disenchanting the imagination; on pend on this vague, half romantic magic, which the the other hand, invited to conclude in reality that expectation of ‘the wonderful’ signi$es, instead of which is left un$nished in the realm of the $ction. seizing the confrontation as a duty, as a battle, of In a wider context, the defeat of Idealism did which she can come out as a genuine and rejuve- come to mean the downfall of imagination. In a nated wife.”49 Nora’s slamming of the door was a time of growing industrialization, of major techni-

84 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 85 NOTES AND REFERENCES 15 Søren Kierkegaard, !e Sickness Unto Death, Princeton dividualized incarnation of self-righteous mercilessness, 42 Herman Bang, Realisme og Realister: Kritiske Studier og 1 See e.g. M. H. Abrams, !e Mirror and the Lamp: Ro- University Press, Princeton, N. J. 1980, p. 31. will continue to throw stones at the Noras throughout Udkast, Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Bor- mantic !eory and the Critical Tradition, Oxford Univer- 16 Søren Kierkegaard, Training in Christianity, Princeton history, and society’s mob will likewise always probably gen, København 2001, p. 360. http://www.adl.dk/ sity Press, London 1971. University Press, Princeton 1967, p. 190. assist them.” adl_pub/pg/cv/ShowPgImg.xsql?nnoc=adl_pub&p_ 2 !is is the tenet of, amongst others, philosopher Frie- 17 Ibid., p. 185f. 29 Robert Neiiendam, op. cit., p. 58. udg_id=192&p_sidenr=1, (accessed 6 January 2014). drich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, for whom art was 18 Ibid., p. 186. 30 Vullum, op. cit. See also Skram op. cit. “Each character is My translation. the highest means of bridging the gap between the in- 19 Richard Kearney, !e Wake of Imagination: Toward a a genuine type, originated in its own generation, sprung 43 Ibid., p. 359. $nite and the $nite, see Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Postmodern Culture, Routledge, London 1998, p. 188. out of the times, and fallen as a ripe fruit of its own nat- 44 Ibid., p. 360f. Schelling, “System Des Transzendentalen Idealismus” in 20 Ibid., p. 185. uralistic and psychological necessity.” 45 Georg Brandes, “Adam Oehlenschläger: Aladdin”, op. Schellings Werke, vol. II, C. H. Beck, München 1965, p. 21 Richard Sha, “Toward a Physiology of the Romantic 31 See e.g. Edvard Brandes, Dansk Skuespilkunst, P. G. cit., p. 219. Brandes cites Hermann Petrich, Drei Kapitel 630. Imagination” in Con%gurations, vol. 17, 2009, p. 13. Philipsens Forlag, København 1880, p. 233. !ere Vom Romantischen Stil, Otto Zeller, Osnabrück 1964, as 3 Nicolai Wergeland, Retfærdig Bedømmelse Af Henrik 22 Georg Brandes, ”Fantasien Og Livet” in Samlede Skrifter, Brandes characterizes Hennings’ roles as Nora and before his source. In Chapter 3, “Die Mystik des romantischen Wergelands Poesie Og Karakter, Gyldendal, Oslo 1995, p. Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag, Kjøbenhavn 1905, p. that Signe in Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson’s A Bankruptcy (En Stils”, Petrich meticulously accounts for the statistical 53. My translation. 486. My translation. Fallit, 1874) as reactions against the ingénue. prevalence of “die directe Bezeichnung des Wunderbaren” 4 Carl Henrik Koch, Den Danske Idealisme 1800-1880, 23 !e director of the Royal !eatre, Edvard Fallesen, had, 32 See e.g. Fritz Wefelmeyer, “Raphael’s Sistine Madon- (p. 101), e.g. Wunder-, Zauber-, Geheimnis-, Seltsam-. Gyldendal, København 2004, p. 141. My translation. when failing to hinder the publication of the text prior to na: An Icon of the German Imagination from Herder 46 G., “Henrik Ibsen: Et Dukkehjem”, Bergens Aftenblad, 5 Cited in Frederik Schyberg, Dansk Teaterkritik, Gylden- the premiere, managed to persuade the Danish reviewers to Heidegger” in Text into Image: Image into Text, Je# vol. 1, no. 1, 2 January 1880. National Library of Nor- dal, København 1937, p. 170. to stall all reviews of the published text. In consequence, Morrison and Florian Krobb, eds., Rodopi, Amsterdam way, http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11180486 (accessed 5 Janu- 6 Quoted in Dansk Litteraturs Historie, vol. 2, Sune Auken there is little distinction in these reviews between text 1997. ary 2014). My translation. et al., eds., Gyldendal, København 2008, p. 42. My and performance. 33 See Joe Perry, Christmas in Germany: A Cultural History, 47 Quoted from Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Alastair translation. 24 Edvard Brandes, “Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House at the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill 2010. Hannay, trans., Penguin Books, London 1992, p. 491. 7 Cited in Robert Neiiendam, Det Kongelige Teaters Histo- Royal !eatre” in Ude og Hjemme, vol. 3, no. 118, 4 34 Vullum, op. cit. See further P. Hansen, “Et Dukkehjem og Recensenterne” rie, vol. III, Pios Boghandel, København 1925, p. 53. My January 1880. National Library of Norway, http://ibsen. 35 See e.g. Erik Østerud “A Doll’s House: Ibsen’s Italian in Kristianssands Stiftsavis og Adressekontors-Efterretninger, translation. nb.no/id/11195169.0 (accessed 5 January 2014). Masquerade” in !eatre Studies, vol. 10, 1997, pp. 23- vol. 91, no. 16, 17 and 18A; 7, 10 and 12 February 8 Petersen continues: “!erefore it is not, as handicraft can 25 Erik Vullum, “Henrik Ibsen: A Doll’s House, Play in !ree 35. 1880. be, pure reproduction, no, the human spirit must always Acts. Copenhagen, Gyldendal Publishers (Gyldendalske 36 Henrik Ibsen, A Doll’s House, James Walter McFarlane, 48 Hansen, op. cit. My translation. have put its creative, idealising touch on that which de- Boghandels Forlag), 1879” in Literatur-Tidende, 6 and trans., in Four Major Plays, Oxford University Press, Ox- 49 Anonymous, op. cit. serves the name artwork. !e ideality of art is beauty, 13 December 1879. National Library of Norway, http:// ford 2008, p. 15. All subsequent references to the play 50 Georg Brandes, “Adam Oehlenschläger: Aladdin”, op. because beauty is the natural expression of goodness in ibsen.nb.no/id/11186623.0 (accessed 5 January 2014). will, unless otherwise indicated, refer to this edition. cit., p. 242. external forms. !erefore, where art portrays ugliness, it 26 As the anonymous reviewer in Bergens Tidende some- 37 Edvard Brandes, “Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House at the 51 Edvard Brandes, op. cit. is not the real ugliness, but the idealising one.” Fredrik what optimistically notes: “‘Realism in our time has Royal !eatre”. Petersen, “Henrik Ibsen’s Drama A Doll’s House” in Af- triumphed everywhere in the visual arts and literature 38 Henrik Ibsen, Four Major Plays: A Doll House, !e Wild tenbladet, 9 and 10 January 1880. National Library of alike, and albeit Romanticism still here and there has a Duck, Hedda Gabler, !e Master Builder, Rolf Fjelde, Norway, http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11186647.0 (accessed 5 lonely representative, you strongly feel that its voice is trans., New American Library of World Literature, New January 2014). but a weak reverberation of a movement, whose mission York 1965. 9 Georg Brandes, “Adam Oehlenschläger: Aladdin” in has been fully completed.” In “Henrik Ibsen, Et Duk- 39 A characterization of Aladdin as a “lucky child” is, for Samlede Skrifter, vol. I, Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag kehjem. Skuespil i Tre Akter. (Kjøbenhavn. Gyldendal- example, found in H. C. Andersen’s novel Lykke-Peer (F. Hegel & Søn), Kjøbenhavn 1899, p. 236. Brandes ske Boghandels Forlag)” in Bergens Tidende, vol. 12, no. (1870). Later, in Henrik Pontoppidan’s novel of the same continues: “for he, who was the emperor of the king- 294A & 295A, 18 and 19 December 1879. National title, Lykke-Per (1898-1904), the portrait of the child of doms of wish and reverie, was in Denmark for long times Library of Norway, http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11180390.0 fortune was rendered from a more sceptical, problema- in fact […] considered the quintessence of al truth and (accessed 5 January 2014). My translation. tizing point of view. all right.” My translation. 27 See e.g. Petersen, op. cit. 40 Johanne Luise Heiberg, “Er Skuespilkunsten En Moralsk 10 Ibid., p. 215. 28 Amalie Skram, “A Re"ection on A Doll’s House” in Berettiget Kunst?” in Et Liv Gjenoplevet i Erindringen, 11 Ibid. Dagbladet, vol. 12, no. 15, 19 January 1880. National Aage Friis, ed., Gyldendal, København 1944, p. 160. 12 Ibid., p. 230. Library of Norway, http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11186656.0 41 See e.g. Søren Kierkegaard, Om Begrebet Ironi, Søren Ki- 13 Ibid., p. 242. (accessed 5 January 2014). !e full entry reads: “the erkegaard Forskningscenteret, Gads Forlag, København 14 Ibid., p. 243. Helmers of this world, who are bourgeois society’s in- 1997, p. 326

86 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 26: no. 2 87