Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 1

Chris Tester
Tutor: David Thomas
Approaches to Modernism II
Module: Ibsen & Strindberg


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



This essay will be focusing on three texts written over a three year period: Henrik
Ibsens Hedda Gabler (1890) and August Strindbergs The Father (1887) and Miss
Julie (1888)
1
. In approaching this topic, I have decided it best to confine my study to
these three plays rather than attempt an overview of either playwrights canon. I
intend to focus on the relevance of the father in these plays, specifically analysing
how the role of fatherhood is explored. Furthermore, instead of trying to take into
account every possible reference to family, I will be limiting my focus to what I
regard as the three central family relationships in these plays: Miss Julie and her
father; Hedda and General Gabler; and finally, the Captain and his daughter Bertha.
Though other characters will obviously be relevant in this study, it is the dramatic
significance of these three relationships that I will be studying closely.

Both playwrights present families as institutions prone to major tensions. While
Strindberg chooses to place family firmly in the context of an instinctive
psychological war between the sexes where the protagonists are rendered almost
helpless, Ibsen stresses how the accumulation of psychological, social and
environmental factors all contribute but not necessarily determine the outcome of the
play. Strindbergs characters seem trapped in a natural pattern of motivations from
which they cannot extricate themselves, and the audience
2
are made aware that the
characters onstage are in some sense archetypes, illustrating a central point about
lifes absurd struggle. By contrast, Ibsens work is deliberately produced to

1
The texts used in this essay, to which all subsequent page references correspond to, are: Hedda
Gabler, Ibsen: Hedda Gabler and Other Plays. trans. Una Ellis-Fermor (Penguin: London 1983). Miss
Julie and The Father, Strindberg: Plays One. trans. Michael Meyer (Methuen: London 1982).
2
I have decided against any attempts to make distinction between modern audiences and those theatre
audiences Ibsen and Strindberg were writing for at the turn of the century, as I feel this issue is
irrelevant to the aims of this essay.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 2
emphasise that the circumstances portrayed, though largely a product of universally
recognisable factors, is still an individual case. Through its presentation, an audience
can possibly identify the factors prevalent in the situation, and so learn what
circumstances they must strive to avoid developing in their own lives.

Ibsens Hedda Gabler and Strindbergs Miss Julie are named after the central female
characters of their respective plays. Importantly, both are daughters of fathers who,
although absent from the stage, still manage to exert an influence over their children.
There are a striking number of similarities in these two plays. Both Hedda and Miss
Julie are daughters of families belonging to branches of the upper-class aristocracy.
Moreover, this fact is of pronounced social significance in each womans case.
Hedda, having recently married Jorgen Tesman, is still referred to as General
Gablers daughter by her husbands aunt. That Miss Tesman doesnt naturally refer
to Hedda either by her first name or by Jorgens surname hints at the close association
of father and daughter. Ibsen stressed Hedda, is to be regarded rather as her fathers
daughter than as her husbands wife
3
. The Generals daughter belongs to a different
class, one associated with rank, and which still retains a sense of formality. Hence,
Miss Tessman confides to Jorgen how she bought her new hat especially so that
Hedda shant be ashamed of me if we go out together
4
. Jorgen, rather than
admonishing her for her servility, proceeds to congratulate his aunt on taking this
measure; there exists a pronounced, mutually acknowledged class divide. Miss Julie
is also defined by her fathers rank; the subject provides the main source of comment
when Jean observes how she (a member of the aristocratic family of the household) is
happy to dance with her social inferiors: I just popped into the barn to watch the
dancing, and who do I see but Miss Julie leading the dance with the gamekeeper
5
. It
is thus possible to draw another parallel in observing that each woman, a member of a
distinctly upper-class family, is presented to us in the context of mixing with her (and
her familys) social inferiors, and that in both cases this provokes immediate comment
by others. When Hedda finally arrives onstage, she still regards herself as belonging
to a different class from the Tesmans. Her calculated dismissal of Miss Tesmans

3
The Correspondence of Henrik Ibsen, trans & ed. by Mary Morison, 435, quoted from Ibsen: A
Collection Of Critical Essays, 132
4
Ellis-Fermor trans, 267.
5
Ellis-Fermor trans, 107

Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 3
best hat, a theatrical symbol of the aunts valiant attempt to raise herself to something
approaching the Gablers level, demonstrates how the new daughter-in-law carries
with her an air of social superiority derived from her aristocratic upbringing. Miss
Julie, by contrast, toys with the precepts of class difference much more openly,
encouraged as she is to fraternise with the servants, thanks to the drinking, dancing,
and numerous other factors
6
. She too is conscious of the social divide between herself
and the servants with whom she flirts. Her ordering around of Jean plays upon her
position as lady of the house; she is his lordships daughter, and Jean is ever wary
of the power the upper-class aristocrat has over him, represented by her fathers boots.
Yet the nature of her requests betrays their self-consciously un-aristocratic origin (like
her dancing and drinking with servants). There is a playfulness in her actions which
highlights Miss Julies public revelry in her social superiority.

There is also a fundamental difference between the two daughters in that while Hedda
is a lady always mindful of maintaining her association with the upper class, there is a
part of Miss Julie that certainly isnt, as is evident at the beginning of the play. Both
womens motivations partly extend from the influences their fathers have had over
them. In Heddas case, the audience are aware that most of her actions are motivated
specifically by her objective of maintaining a place in Norways aristocratic circle.
With the portrait of General Gabler already installed in her new house, one gets the
impression of Hedda being conscious of her fathers gaze, even from the grave.
When in Act Two, Hedda recollects her time with Lvborg always being subject to
the watchful eyes of her father, Ibsen provides an insight into the nature of the Gabler
father-daughter relationship. Heddas upbringing has rendered her highly conscious
of social appearances, to the extent where they have a primary importance. It is
revealed that this pronounced psychological fear of social shame, drummed into her
since childhood by the General, was probably the main factor in her not forming a
relationship with Lvborg in the first place when given the opportunity. It is for the
same reason that despite Hedda finding herself trapped in a marriage to a man she can
hardly stand, she stops short of ever embarking on a physical affair with either Brack
or Lvborg, wary of the potential risk:


6
Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie, Strindberg: Plays One, 93. Strindberg continually stressed the
multiplicity of factors present in the play.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 4
Brack: one jumps out and walks about a little bit, Madam Hedda.
Hedda: I never jump out.
Brack: Dont you really.
Hedda: No. Because there is always someone at hand who
Brack: (laughing) Who looks when you leap, you mean?
Hedda: Precisely.
Brack: Oh come, you know!
Hedda: (with a gesture of disagreement) I dont care for that.
7




Thus Heddas thought processes can be largely attributed to her father, demonstrated
onstage by her increasing retreat into a private backstage sanctum full of objects from
her home: the pistols, her fathers portrait and piano. Ibsens keen use of stagecraft
chooses this careful use of the stage, along with Heddas passing comments and
conduct with other characters, as alternative forms of expression to explicitly
revealing dialogue or monologue.

Whereas in Hedda Gabler, aristocratic standards of the father are taken over by the
daughter as an act of paternal duty, Miss Julie expresses a resentment of the social
expectations foisted upon her by her position as her fathers daughter. Unlike General
Gablers child, Miss Julie exhibits a desire to descend from the pedestal shes been
brought up on. Dramatically this has already been demonstrated by her willingness to
talk, dance and flirt with Jean, her social inferior. The intoxication of the wine, the
celebrations and the circumstances, also play their parts in formulating the scenario
presented to us. The crucial factor in Strindbergs play, as mentioned in his preface
8
,
is the sheer multiplicity of factors, and her upbringing by an aristocratic father
concerned with honour and reputation is certainly one of them. Significantly,
Strindbergs use of the monologue in his play (again justified in his preface and here
partly attributed in Miss Julies case to the alcohol she has consumed), allows his
character to vocalise her feelings openly to the audience:

Miss Julie: Ive climbed to the top of the pillar, and am sitting there, and I can see
no way to descend. When I look down, I become dizzy, but I must
come down but I havent the courage to jump. I cant stay up there,

7
Ellis-Fermor trans, 301
8
Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie, 93.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 5
and I long to fall, but I dont fall. And yet I know I shall find no peace
till I come down, no rest till I come down, down to the ground.
9



Analysing Heddas position in the Tesmans household, it is striking how much of her
dissatisfaction can be attributed to the legacy of her fathers upbringing in alignment
with a patriarchal structure. Her desire for control over social situations (just like her
fathers over her during childhood) is physically demonstrated in the first three acts of
the play by the way she moves characters around the stage: it is she who directs Brack
and Tesman into the inner room so that private conversations can be conducted with
Thea and Lvborg; it is she who controls who stays and who goes to the party
(specifically Lvborg). This control over others is mirrored in Miss Julies early
instruction of Jean. But Heddas sheltered upbringing as a female aristocrat leaves
her lacking the means of supporting herself. Having been raised in her fathers house,
she would find it psychologically inconceivable to take the step down in society (and
necessary change in her accustomed physical environment) which a highly reduced
income would necessitate. As a result she is willing to marry a man who might
provide the required income, even though it is a union which leaves her bored and
frustrated. She has become dependent on a man she detests, one who, with his
slippers and frequent visits to his aunts, is a polar opposite to her father. Heddas
dependent status in a patriarchal society, when combined with the psychological
legacy of her upbringing, has rendered her almost helpless in determining her own
fate. An upper-class female is not expected to possess the skills to support herself,
and her childhood has made her largely dependent on men (to exist). She has been
thrust into a Catch-22 situation, with nominal control over her own future.

Heddas subsequent actions are discernibly derived from such factors. Apparently
unable to control her own future, she is presented with the next best alternative in
Theas example: one can attempt to have an influence over another persons destiny.
In her child, the manuscript she worked on with Lvborg, Thea has exhibited a
potency much envied by Hedda; this is theatrically symbolised by her hair, which
Hedda constantly fondles with envy. Unable to dictate her own situation, Hedda is
her fathers daughter in so much as she too desires an active role, to be of importance,
to play General; she has fallen in love with the idea of masculine authority and

9
Meyer trans, 116
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 6
action. As Caroline Mayerson suggests, her subsequent attempts at shaping
Lvborgs destiny into something romantic prove the symptom of this:

It is this tradition to which the pistols and Hedda (in her own mind) belong,
and it is, after all, the General only as glimpsed through his daughters
ambitions and conceptions of worth that is of real importance in the play.
These conceptions, as embodied in Heddas romantic ideal of manhood, may
be synthesised from the action and the dialogue. The aristocrat possesses
courage and self-control. He expresses himself through direct and
independent action but the recklessness is tempered by a disciplined will, by
means of which he beautifully orders both his own actions and those of
others on whom his power is imposed. He shoots straight to defend his life
or his honour, and to maintain his authority.
10


This desire is expressed in her handling of her fathers pistols. The pistols have an
immediate association with individual power and action, the ability to dictate and
control situations. Heddas random firing of them at the beginning of Act Two
illustrates that by this stage, she isnt too concerned what shape this power takes (ie.
whether it involves directly her own fate or someone elses), it is the principle of
having a participating role that is the issue. The pistols are phallic symbols, signifiers
of power in a patriarchal environment, which she is denied in her role as an upper-
class, female housewife in the public eye. Thanks largely to her fathers upbringing
and the lack of a mother figure, Hedda is more attracted by the masculine concepts
existing in society, rather than by the traditional female roles of wife and mother.

Miss Julies situation is also bound up in the tensions between social and
psychological factors originating from her family. However (in contrast to Ibsen),
Strindberg chooses to place this in a specific context relating to the archetypal
struggle between the sexes. Miss Julie is torn between her simultaneous hatred and
desire for men, as well as her continual sense of honour and later consciousness of her
fallen state. Her relationship with Jean, once consummated, leaves her desperately

10
Mayerson, p. 136
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 7
trying to rationalise the act itself by explaining it as love
11
. Yet Jean points out this
is just a desperate attempt to rationalise a product of circumstances, and the blow
delivered to the inbuilt sense of honour derived from her father
12
, provokes a violent
reaction. The conflict resident within the character is explicitly framed in terms of the
mother and fathers influences in her childhood. The battle between male and female,
the continual struggle of which Strindberg was ever conscious, provides the means of
expressing the conflicting elements of her personality, to the extent where the
individual is almost lost in the tide:

Miss Julie: Who is to blame for what has happened my father, my mother,
myself? Myself? I have no self. I havent a thought I didnt get from
my father, not an emotion I didnt get from my mother
13



Strindbergs dramatic use of the monologue allows Miss Julie to vividly recollect the
immediate history of her family: her mothers vehement rejection of patriarchal
authority which led in turn to her fathers social exclusion and the attempted reversal
of conventional sex roles; how this finally led to her fathers protestation, and how the
two subsequently waged war on each other until her mothers death. Miss Julie is the
product of such a marriage: a confused creature constructed from a brutal
amalgamation of her mothers instincts and fathers social mores. Thus, she possesses
not only a human desire for relationships but also a deep-rooted hatred of men
14
, a
desire to break free from the shackles of her role in society, yet also a keen sense of
honour that proves her bane after her fall with Jean
15
. It is the clash of what
Strindberg referred to as the passionate character of her mother and the upbringing
misguidedly inflicted on her by her father
16
. The environmental factors that
Strindberg depicts onstage, combined with this chaotic internal chemistry, all
contribute to the circumstances of the play. The impossibility of reconciling them
leads to Jeans proposition of suicide as a form of escape.


11
I made Miss Julie imagine herself to be in love so as to excuse her action and escape her feeling of
guilt, Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie, p.98.
12
an example ofthe inherent sense of honour that also leads Miss Julie into ordering the destruction of
her dog Diana after discovering it has been impregnated by a mongrel (in an obvious foreshadowing of
her own situation)
13
Meyer trans, 144
14
Meyer trans, 131 and 139
15
the Old Warrior nobility psychology, Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie, p. 93.
16
Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie, p. 93.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 8
Hence, both daughters suicides can be partly attributed to their familys influence.
As Miss Julie ultimately isnt permitted to excuse her violation of honour as love, so
the failure of Heddas romantic visions (first motivated by the prospect of finally
having a role in another persons destiny), leads to her death. When Miss Julie leaves
the stage for the final time, Strindberg has made sure that we are explicitly aware of
all the factors that have played their part. In her own confined state, Hedda perceives
the only way of having a role of importance can be through delivering Lvborg to
himself. His subsequent failure to control himself at Bracks party and return with
vineleaves in his hair, followed by his ignoble death (when she had provided him
with the means of a glorious exit), denies Hedda any chance of fulfilling her longing
for significance. For her, a future in the Tesman household is psychologically
impossible: Thea and Jorgen have moved out of her sphere of influence, and the focus
on Lvborgs work seems to re-emphasise she wont have any significant role to play
in future affairs. Married to a man to whom she doesnt relate, pregnant with a child
she doesnt want, with a future as a housewife in a house isolated from the city (the
ultimate form of domesticity that so revolted her as illustrated by her reaction to
Jorgens slippers), Heddas life becomes the antithesis to her fathers role, and
complete anathema to General Gablers daughter. Additionally, Brack occupies a
position of power she simply cannot bear; continually entering as he has done from
the back door, his presence represents potential social scandal. Hedda has not been
raised to be psychologically content with such an existence. Ibsen presents a
catalogue of social and psychological factors that all contribute towards Heddas
death.

But the endings of the two plays differentiate in tone, and this illustrates Ibsen and
Strindbergs fundamentally different perspectives. In Miss Julie, the final feeling is of
futility
17
. Neither Jean nor Miss Julie can be held completely responsible, and so
there is an air of helplessness over proceeding. Like an animal, Miss Julie has found
herself the victim of her own human existence; the battle of the sexes, both those

17
In his preface to the play, Strindberg seemed to suggests otherwise, explaining that when we have
become as strong as the French revolutionaries it will do us good to see the forest cleared of old, rotting
trees that have stood too long in the way of others with equal right to a time in the sun as much good
as watching the death of someone incurably ill. However, I am inclined to sympathise with Martin
Lamms observation that our response to the ending of the play is less joyous because Strindberg, his
professed objectivity notwithstanding, has conceived of Miss Julies destiny tragically. She is the
refined aristocrat who succumbs in the struggle with the coarse proletarian (Lamm, 115)
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 9
enacted onstage between her and Jean, but especially between her parents, have
helped render her almost helpless, and the tragic atmosphere that pervades the close of
the play is obvious. Family for Strindberg, with its inherent conflict between male
and female, is yet another factor to be counted among the multiplicity of motives
cited in his Preface
18
.

In Hedda Gabler, Ibsen denies his protagonist absolute tragic status by allowing
Tesman and Brack to have the final word:

Tesman: (shrieking to Brack) Shot herself! Shot herself in the temple! Think
of it!
Brack: (half-collapsed in the easy-chair). But, merciful God! People dont do
such things!
19



Brack repeats Heddas oft repeated mantra concerning social propriety, and the effect
is to render the closing moment almost comic. Hedda has finally taken her destiny
into her own hands. Her use of the Generals pistol symbolically reaffirms that it is
an act born out of psychological necessity, a psychology stemming from her fathers
influence (not unlike Strindbergs old warrior nobility). But the action continues
after Heddas death; life goes on, and choosing simply not to participate isnt a
constructive solution. Fundamentally, while Strindbergs characters are presented as
beings caught in archetypal patterns of conflict, a Darwinian battle to determine the
stronger from which it is impossible to escape, Ibsen insists that the individual is
capable of breaking the cycle. Though Ibsen never suggests such an act would be
easy, our final image of Heddas death is one deliberately tinged with absurdity to
remind the audience that what has been enacted onstage isnt simply the tragedy of
the human condition. Heddas life has been largely shaped by the psychological and
social concerns created by her upbringing as General Gablers daughter; but her death
isnt necessary in the same way Miss Julies appears to be. In the pregnancy she so
despises, Ibsen may even have provided a tangible opportunity for Hedda to change
things in the future through the upbringing of her child. Mayerson observes that, in
emotionally repudiating her unborn child, Hedda rejects what Ibsen considered

18
Meyer trans, 94
19
Ellis-Fermor trans, 364
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 10
womans opportunity to advance the march of progress
20
(p. 132). The play has a
number of points to make about womens existence in the Norwegian society of the
time, but in the context of this question, it ultimately suggests that genealogies, the
psychological and social legacies of ones family, arent necessarily insurmountable
obstacles for individuals.

Whereas Hedda Gabler and Miss Julie explore the effects a father never seen has on
his child, Strindbergs The Father is designed to provide an insight into a fathers
battle for control over his family. Despite offering a different characters point of
view, several of the dramatic techniques resident in Miss Julie are exhibited. Even
more importantly, Strindberg again insists on placing the family of the play in the
context of a Darwinian battle of the strongest. It is natural for us to expect similarities
between The Father and Miss Julie due to the close proximity of their writing, but the
points made about Strindbergs later work help provide an additional insight into the
playwrights main concerns. In The Father, Strindberg raises a further issue
concerning family: can any father know (in a time before genetic testing) if his child
is truly his? Furthermore, how does the subsequent uncertainty effect the position and
authority of a father in a patriarchal household? Perhaps the most important fact to
consider is that in this play, Strindberg is consciously focused on an archetypal family
role: the play is called The Father not Captain Adolf after all. The direct quotations
of Shakespeare the literary references from numerous sources regarding a fathers
dilemma, and the echoing of the fathers situation in both his servants
21
as well as the
Pastors own experiences (he confides Do you think I havent been all through
this?
22
), are all designed to emphasise that the circumstances presented, in the
playwrights opinion, are universal; the sphere of reference is ever outward.

To investigate this subject, Strindberg provides the character of the Captain, who from
his first entrance in undress uniform, riding boots and spurs, appears the physical
embodiment of male capability. He is also a character created with the ability to
analyse his own fluctuating position in the household, throughout the narrative. In

20
Cf. Ibsens speech to the Norwegian Womens Rights League (1898): It is women who are to solve
the social problems. As mothers they are to do it. And only as such can they do it. Speeches and
New Letters of Henrik Ibsen, trans. by Arne Kildal, 66, quoted in Mayerson, 132.
21
Meyer trans, can be found on pages 59, 68 and 28 respectively
22
Meyer trans, 32
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 11
granting the main character this capacity to recognise his own situation and even
occasionally be amused by it, the character is intended to tread the border between
serious and comic. Strindberg himself maintained:

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



The audience are provided with a rare view of the main protagonists psychology at
work, just as if he were a Hamlet, yet in a play generally regarded as one of the
authors most naturalistic
24
. Just as in Miss Julie, Strindberg takes care to realistically
integrate the theatrical technique of the monologue to make explicit how the situation
is having an effect on his characters. The Captain is thus capable of giving the
audience an analysis of his emotions throughout the play, in a way not entirely
dissimilar to Miss Julie.

The background to the action of the play itself is a fight for supremacy between
patriarchy and matriarchy in a household
25
; a source of continual tension that is
brought to a climax through the debate over a daughters future. Husband and wife
fundamentally disagree about what is best for their child, but the conflict seems to be
regarded purely in terms of principle. Any concern for the childs welfare is
frequently pretence. The Captains lucid grasp of his own motivations provides him
with the means of expressing what his own daughter actually signifies for him: I do
not believe in resurrection, and to me this child was my life hereafter. She was my
idea of immortality perhaps the only one that has any roots in reality. Take her

23
Meyer trans, Strindberg, quoted in Meyer trans, Introduction to The Father, Strindberg: Plays One.
24
the masterpiece of naturalistic drama- Lamm, Miss Julie. Strindberg: Collection of Critical
Essays, 105.
25
The battle for power in the marital relationship of the Captain and Laura is partly represented onstage
by the possession of the secretaire, from where the former literally holds the purse-strings over the
latter in the first act. Strindbergs positioning of Laura at the secretaire in the third act, rifling through
its contents, is a deliberate theatrical technique that helps emphasise to the audience how she has
gradually usurped her husbands control.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 12
away and you cut short my life
26
. To Laura, the matter is all to do with the current
balance of power; her brother (the Pastor) reflects, it wasnt the thing she wanted,
simply the fact of having her will
27
. Bertha herself even confides that She doesnt
pay any attention to me
28
, whereas the Captain at least consults his daughters
opinion (though importantly, after he has already made up his mind). Bertha herself
is rarely on stage
29
, and furthermore, she never objects to her fathers plans about her
future:

Father: Would you like to go and live in town, and learn something useful?
Bertha: Oh, Id so love to live in town and get away from here anywhere! As
long as I can see you sometimes often! In here everythings so
gloomy, so horrible, like a winter night.
30



What the figure of the daughter does do is draw attention to the environment of the
family house, specifically the gloomy atmosphere pervading it. The home is not the
warm, comforting place it should be, but another battlefield. Furthermore, the child
appears little more than a possession to be fought over, one which (caught between
the conflicting wills of her parents), struggles to have a will of her own
31
. Though the
story of the daughter is largely subordinate to the main marital conflict, what proves
remarkable is the recurrence of this topic via the Captain, in his almost passing
observation that Mother and father had me against their will, and so I was born
without a will
32
. Individually this passage could be construed as insignificant, but
the theme of dislocation from ones parents is touched on again in Act Three: My
mother was my enemy. She didnt want to bring me into the world because my birth
would cause her pain. She robbed my first embryo of its nourishment, so I was born
half-crippled
33
. The Captain refers to his mother always in the context of one of the
several women he has been at war with, and so Strindbergs utilisation of mother-son,
father-daughter relationships is specifically intended to emphasise their context within
the continual battle of the sexes. This heavily echoes extracts from the later play Miss

26
Meyer trans, 58
27
Meyer trans, 31
28
Meyer trans, 44
29
Bertha is present in only three of the plays twenty-three scenes
30
Meyer trans, 43
31
Meyer trans, 71
32
Meyer trans, 60
33
Meyer trans, 74
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 13
Julie, specifically the main characters earlier cited reflection: Who is to blame?
Myself? I have no self! I havent a thought I didnt get from my father, not an
emotion I didnt get from my mother
34
. In the closing stages of Miss Julie, it is
her pet finch that was the only living thing that loves me
35
, any reference to her
father being conspicuous by its absence. As Raymond Williams observed, the child
doesnt even have to be active. In a passive state, it is still a weapon and a prize in
the parents continuing struggle, itself unwanted continually unwanted, since there
is no final place for it where it was born, and yet the loss of this place is an absolute
exposure
36
. Once again, Strindberg is shown to provide an explicit depiction of the
psychological pressures under which his characters operate.

In the final act, the Captain reflects on how his marriage was once happy, in a time
where the relationship was primarily maternal
37
. Only when the Captain assumed his
position as patriarchal head of the family through his new role as father, did the
conflict start: the arrival of Bertha provided something to lay claim to. This scenario
emphasises Strindbergs fundamental point of view: that relationships between sexes
are essentially competitive. When the Captain was Lauras little boy under her
control, they could maintain a state of armistice
38
; once this equilibrium dissolved,
her natural impulse was to regain authority by any means. Thus, Strindberg suggests,
the fundamental structure of families will always lead to a struggle for dominance. In
Lauras case, this involved the systematic emasculation of her husband. She leaves
all patriarchal authority redundant (as Strindberg termed it, impotent
39
). The
Captains scientific reputation and honour have been gradually eroded, and the crucial
blow is struck through the obliteration of the primary objective of patriarchy: the
continuation of the fathers line. Having sacrificed his life and honour in the belief
that through his child a form of immortality was obtainable, the uncertainty
concerning Berthas origins illustrates how the whole patriarchal construction of
fatherhood can be quickly rendered defunct. Berthas unwillingness to side

34
Meyer trans, 144
35
Meyer trans, 138
36
Raymond Williams, Private Tragedy: Strindberg, Strindberg: A Collection of Critical Essays, p. 49
37
Meyer trans, 60
38
vocabulary derived from warfare permeates the play, eg. The Captains military secret (35) and later
proposal of an armistice (57)
39
Strindberg, quoted in Meyer trans, 17.
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 14
exclusively with the Captain against her mother destroys any remaining hopes of
victory in the battle with his wife:

Captain: You must only love me! You must only have one soul, or you will
never find peace, nor shall I. You must have only one thought, and
you shall have only one will, mine.
Bertha: I dont want that! I want to be myself!
Captain: I wont let you do that! You see, Im a cannibal, and I want to eat you.
Your mother wanted to eat me, but she couldnt. I am Saturn, who ate
his children because it had been prophesied that otherwise they would
eat him. To eat or be eaten! That is the question.
40




The conscious echoing of Hamlets To be or not to be is intended to resonate with a
theatre audience, once again emphasising the universality of the struggle
41
. The
childs position is that of a pawn in a heightened game of power between its parents.
The Captain is left unable to lift a finger in response: when he reaches for his
revolver, a symbol of masculine phallic authority presiding over the household from
its mounting on the wall, Laura has symbolically robbed it of its potency by taking its
ammunition. The stage-image constructed for the close of the play demonstrates how
the matriarchys final victory (attributed in part to womens own security regarding
the origin of their children) has led to the father figure being reduced to a state of
second childhood. The defining role of patriarchal authority in the family, the
position of father, has been rendered literally impotent by the removal of the
daughter as a route to immortality; by extension, the logic that first legitimised the
sex-conflict instigated through the undertaking of the role of father has collapsed.
This alternative perspective is what differentiates the play. Whereas Hedda Gabler
and Miss Julie touch on the influence of father on the daughter, The Father examines
the function children have within the concept of fatherhood, and how they are
inevitably drawn into the archetypal struggle of which we are all part. Ibsen and
Strindberg had fundamentally different opinions, but the re-emergence of topics
concerning the family and the role of the father proves they both felt compelled to
deal with them, and regard them as truly universal themes worth investigating
theatrically.

40
Meyer trans, 71
41
One can only speculate as to whether Strindberg considered the tale of Hamlet as another Darwinian
battle for survival .
Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 15
Bibliography


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

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

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

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

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

Meyer, Michael, trans. Strindberg: Plays One
Methuen: London, 1982

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

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

Robinson, Michael. Strindberg and Genre
Norvik Press: Norwich, 1991
Trnqvist, Egil. Strindberg and Subjective Drama, 97-107
Kvam, Keva. Strindberg as an Innovator of Dramatic and Theatrical Form,
108-118

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










Ibsen & Strindberg Tester 16