Реферат на тему Dolls House Theme Essay Research Paper IbsenHistorical
Работа добавлена на сайт bukvasha.net: 2015-06-07Поможем написать учебную работу
Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Dolls House Theme Essay, Research Paper
Ibsen:Historical Analysis of A Doll’s House
To view a work of art separately from it?s environment, ignoring the context, will often undermine
important aspects of the work. However, embracing the context will allow one to appreciate the
full scope and depth of the piece. In order to fully absorb and understand it, one must consider
factors in the artist?s life and surroundings, i.e. the context. Henrik Ibsen created A Doll?s House
between 1878 and 1880. Like any significant work of art the context not only influenced the play,
but were essential parts of it. Norway, in the early 19th century, was united with Sweden, who
maintained seniority in the relationship. Norway?s crown was based in Sweden, and most
Norwegians felt thier freedom was restricted. The linguistic difference that existed prohibited any
cultural merging. A good example being the relationship between Denmark and Norway, the latter
being a colony of Denmark?s until 1814. During the Danish rule of Norway, there was a cultural
synthesis involving literature. This influence was still prominant during Ibsen?s time and
throughout his work. During the early part of the 19th century a patriotic movement materialized,
mainly sparked by a student named Henrik Wergeland. He studied and popularized neglected
folklore and other forgotten art and renewed confidence and pride in the otherwise disappearing
Norwegian artists. Wergeland and other patriots, including Ibsen had their opposition. The Party
of Intelligence felt that Norway could only be redeemed by staying involved in the Euro- stream,
while the patriots preached isolationism and felt that Norway could only find new strength from
within itself. The Party considered the patriots crude and violent, while the patriots saw in the
Party the future of the establishment they were currently trying to derail. Nasjonalromantikken, or
national romaticism, became a widely popular idea, in part because of Wergeland?s writings. This
movement centered around a restored appreciation for Norway?s non- material resources,
including the painters, musicians and folklorists. Asbjornsen and Moe researched, rewrote, and
published collections of Norwegian folktales and restoration was begun on the Trondheim
Cathedral, a very important piece of national pride. There was much debate regarding language
when new Norwegian dialects were created while the most commonly spoken language,
Landsmaal, was not yet accepted as a written language. This caused many problems for the
writers, as they spoke one language, but were forced to write in another. Aasmund Vinje, a
schoolmaster and writer, created a written lanuage based on Landsmaal and helped advance
towards a solution. Ibsen, like most writers, though, continued to work using the Dano – Norsk
dialect, (Danish influenced Norwegian) called riksmaal, and spoke out against Landsmaal. A
Euro- romantic movement around the middle of the century produced many Norwegian artists
including Andreas Munch, Bjornstjerne Bjornson, and Vinje. Wergeland?s sister, Fru Collett,
published The Sheriff?s Daughters in 1855 and it was considered the first Norwegian novel of any
stature. Danish writers continued to exert their influence when Hans Christain Anderson and
Ingemann became popular and many Norsk writers looked to them for ideas and techniques.
During the 1870s, a Realist movement hit Norway and changed the writing of Ibsen, Bjornson,
and the ?Father of the Norwegian Novel,? Kielland. During this time, prose drama and fiction
dominated this Norsk, artistic rennaisance, while poetry had little or no place in it. Some saw
poetry becoming popular around 1890, but this was more of a prose poetry, or prose that invoved
the evocation of moods. Henrik Ibsen was born on March 28, 1828 in the small, southern town of
Skien. When he was young, Henrik?s father went bankrupt, which was considered very
disgraceful at the time. This affected young Ibsen greatly and he used it to allegorize in The Wild
Duck. Henrik attained an apprenticeship for a pharmacist, but despised the job and moved to
Christiana, where he intended to attend school. Instead, he became the house poet and eventually
stage manager at the Norske Theatre in Bergen. He then went back to Christiana where he directed
at the Mollergate Theatre until 1862. During this time he married Susannah Thoreson and wrote
The Vikings in Helgeland, which popularized him as a writer in Norway. In 1864 he applied for a
poet?s pension from the government but was refused. He became enraged at his homeland and left
it, headed for Italy and Germany, though he still made known his love for his homeland. He
continued to write and produced a number of plays and traveled to Egypt, among other countries.
Ibsen was not pleased with the nationalism of the foreigners he traveled with. He offended many
when he commented on this in a poem to a Swedish lady he knew, referring to “A herd of German
wild pigs, almost tamed.” It made him glad he was from a smaller, ?non- competative,? country.
He was also disgusted with the lack of religious importance in the Middle East, stating that the
gods of Greece still live, and Zeus still moves in the capitol, but “Where is Horus? Where is
Hathor? No trace exists, no memory.” When in Rome, Ibsen began work on a play titled Et
Dukkehjem. A Doll?s House (in English) is a drama in which a woman (Nora), as a result of
certain events, realizes how one – sided her love for her husband is. Throughout their marriage,
she is viewed as an object, rather than a caring equal. She leaves her husband, and her children, in
the search for individuality and freedom. At the time of it?s peformance, most viewers were
offended at the way Nora spoke to her husband. At the time, marriage was a private thing, not
suited for discussion in one of the most public of art forms, and divorce was something one did
not bring up at all. Many called Ibsen an anarchist for suggesting that women leave their families
in search of themselves. Ibsen was not suggesting anyone do anything. His reply was that his job
was to ask questions, not to answer them. He was mearly requesting that people look at, and think
about, the social structure they support. One of Ibsen?s main ideologies was that every human
being has the right to act on private judgement against conventional beliefs. The play reflects this
clearly, and the rebel in it is a woman for a reason. Ibsen knew no one would contemplate his
theme so thoroughly had Nora been a man or child. Many view this play as a feminist drama, one
created to better women?s lives. Ibsen?s only purpose was to better human interactions. He once
offended a dinner party, thrown in honor of him, by a woman?s rights group, when he stated that
he did not know what the woman?s cause was. He did not see woman?s causes as any different
than human causes. In Ibsen?s notes for A Doll?s House, he speaks of two types of moral
consciousness, one for men and one for women. He felt that the two did not understand each
other, but, in practical life, women were judged by masculine law as though they were men. “A
woman cannot be herself in today?s society.” He was also quoted as saying that: “A man is easy to
study, but one never fully understands a woman. They are a sea which none can fathom.” The
rule over Norway, by Sweden, made freedom a popular topic of that time. Ibsen, though, saw
political freedom and personal freedom as two very different things. I shall never agree to identify
Freedom with political freedom. What you call Freedom, I call freedoms, and what I call the battle
for Freedom is nothing but the continuous pursuit of the idea of Freedom. He who possesses
Freedom otherwise than as something to be striven for possesses something dead and
meaningless, for by it?s very definition Freedom perpetually expands as one seeks to embrace it,
so that if, during the quest, anyone stops and says: ?Now I have it!? he shows thereby that he has
lost it. According to Ibsen?s view of ?Freedom,? it is not something that can be given to someone,
the way Denmark had “given” it to Norway, with the stipulation that Sweden be the big sister in
the relationship. Norway was considered ?free? by the Swedes. They had thier own crown, and
government, but it was so closely intertwined with that of Sweden that any Norsk individuality
was lost. Sweden, like Nora?s husband Torvald, was undoubtedly dominant. Norway had
freedoms, and could be involved in the legislation of itself. Nora had freedoms, and was allowed
her own life, to some degree. But any concern for Nora?s (or Norway?s) personal being was
purely superficial. Eventually both became tired of having thier ?Freedom? restricted and took
action. The search for ?Freedom? for Nora, like Norway, began from within. The most direct
historical comparison that can be made with the play is with the woman it is based on. Laura
Kieler was a woman whose conduct was admired greatly by Ibsen. So much so that he based his
most rebellious character on her, clearly solidifying the connection between context and art. Laura,
unlike Nora, did not, however, leave her husband. It swiftly became common knowledge that this
was the woman that Nora was based on, and Laura?a life was all but ruined. Ibsen expressed
much concern and regret upon learning what effect his play had had on her, but by then there was
nothing to be done. A Doll?s House had many critics, and the ending we know was not the one
shown all over at first. One actress refused to participate unless the ending was changed, citing
that she would never leave her children. Ibsen decided that, if it was necessary that the ending be
changed, he should be the one to change it. He considered this the lesser of two evils, though still
calling the situation a “barbaric outrage.” Ibsen?s contemporary, Bjornson, said about the play, “It
is technically excellent, but written by a vulgar and evil mind.” Ibsen had this to say about his
critics and his writing: Most critical objections boil down to a reproach against the writer for being
himself, thinking, feeling, seeing and writing as himself, instead of seeing and writing as the critic
would have done, had he been able. The essential thing is to protect one?s essential self, to keep it
pure and free of all intrusive elements, and to draw a clear distinction between what one has
merely experienced and what one has spiritually lived through; for only the latter is proper matter
for creative writing. Ibsen?s supporters eventually outnumbered his critics, and A Doll?s House,
with the original ending, made him artistically, socially, and financially successful. The play is not
nearly the social phenomenon it was at the time, but it?s content, like that of all great art, can be a
lesson to us still.