Ibsen And Strindberg 2
Ibsen And Strindberg & # 8211 ; Hedda Gabler And Miss Julie Essay, Research Paper
? Compare and contrast the characters of Hedda Gabler and Miss Julie in the dramas by Ibsen and Strindberg. Support your findings with remarks on the authors attitudes to their characters. ?
August Strindberg and Henrik Ibsen were both great dramatists of the nineteenth century, and both played a big function in the development of modern twenty-four hours naturalism/ pragmatism. The drama I will be discoursing are Ibsen? s Hedda Gabler, ( 1890 ) and Strindberg? s Miss Julie ( 1888 ) . In Karen? s talk on Strindberg, she told how the two dramatists were challengers in a sense, chiefly caused by Strindberg? s attitudes on societal issues- Namely his ideas and theory on the function of adult females in society. Therefore, I am lead to believe that Hedda Gabler was written by Ibsen as a direct revenge to Strindberg? s Miss Julie, merely as Karen believes that Strindberg? s The Father was written as a answer to Ibsen? s Ghosts. Although both dramas end with the self-destruction of the taking character, the fortunes by which they occur are really different.
In order to take these dramas in their full context, it is of import to analyze the lives of the dramatists and see merely how much of their ain ideas, beliefs and feelings are reflected in their dramas. I feel this is peculiarly of import in the instance of Strindberg. I was intrigued by Karen? s talk on Strindberg, in peculiar the rise of his woman hater attitudes and his province of mental wellness. His attitudes are reflected in Miss Julie rather clearly. Strindberg believed that Women were a secondary signifier, which can be seen through reading his foreword to the drama. The interlingual rendition of the drama I examined was from the? Drama Classics? ( D.C ) Series. I found a really interesting piece of composing in this version of the drama ; In an editors note, it is explained that the interlingual rendition was based on the original text, and contained some harangues which were non included in most published versions. The most interesting of these was a portion in the foreword which was non in the other versions, it reads as follows ;
[ There? s a position, current at the minute even among rather reasonable people,
that adult females, that secondary signifier humanity ( 2nd to work forces, the Godheads and
makers of human civilization ) should in some manner become equal with work forces,
or could so be ; this is taking to a battle which is both eccentric and doomed.
It? s bizarre because a secondary signifier, by the Torahs of scientific discipline, is ever traveling
to be a secondary signifier… … ..the proposition is every bit impossible as that two
parallel lines should of all time run into. ] I find these remarks rather amazing, and there are no deficit of similar remarks in his foreword. Karen explained how Strindberg besides believed that when a adult female was flowing, it meant she was in an altered province of head. In his foreword, Strindberg gives this as one of the possible grounds behind Julie? s self-destruction. An apprehension of these attitudes is critical to to the full understand Miss Julie and do the connexion between Julie and Hedda.
As I touched on earlier, Strindberg developed a hatred towards Ibsen, as he saw him as a booster of feminism. Karen spoke of Ibsen? s Ghosts, in which a adult female spoke out against a dead adult male. Strindberg did non like this, as the male had no opportunity to support himself. As a consequence, he wrote The Father. In this drama, Strindberg makes all the female characters out to be dislikeable and narky. It is this which leads me to believe that Hedda Gabler was written by Ibsen as a answer to Miss Julie. I will try to expose my concluding behind this theory, analyzing the rubric characters from both dramas and showing the authors attitudes being displayed throughout the drama.
To me, Miss Julie seems to be a true? Battle of the sexes? drama, in which the male necessarily wins. Throughout the drama, a power game is being played by Jean and Julie. The character of Julie is what Strindberg would depict as a? half-woman? – that is, she does non cognize her topographic point in society and attempts to rule a male. Strindberg? s foreword touches on this issue ;
? Modern women’s rightists thrust themselves frontward, selling themselves for
power, honours, differentiations and sheepskin as adult females one time did for
money. ? She is socially superior to Jean in that she is from an blue household and Jean is her male parents servant. She tries to asseverate herself over Jean from the really start of the drama when she demands that Jean dances with her. She even claims herself to be? Fireproof? ( D.C p.14 ) . Julies power is clear as Jean endows her with remarks such as? I? 500 obey. Naturally. ? ( D.C p.9 ) .
As the drama progresses, Julie? s desires to be dominated interruption out, and Jean rises. Strindberg remarks in his foreword ;
? His power over Miss Julie has nil to make with the fact that he is lifting
in the universe ; it is because he is a adult male. He is sexually her higher-up because
of his masculinity, his finer esthesias and his ability to take enterprise. ? The brace both Tell of a dream they have, which seems to be about prophetic. Julie? s dream is that she is on top of a high pillar, and can? t acquire down once more, but longs to be on the land. She says if she did make the land, she would? desire to drop lower, lower. ? ( D.C p12 ) . On the other manus, Jean dreams that he is lying under a tree and wants to be up, aloft, where he can see the skyline. The job being that the first subdivision is excessively high, but he says? I know if I can merely make it, I could clamber up the remainder like a ladder? ( D.C p12 ) . Jeans? First subdivision? is of class Miss Julie. He longs to lift into a higher societal category, and sees Julie as a agency of making so. The dreams correspond, as Julie longs to be dominated.
By the terminal of the drama, Jean has complete laterality over Julie, he has progressed from flunky to wine drinker. He conquers Julie sexually hence mentally to a point where she is really pleading with him ;
? Help me. Give me orders, I? ll obey like a Canis familiaris. One last service:
Salvage my name, my honor. You know what I want to make, and can? t.
Make me, will me to make it, order me. ? ( D.C p.50 ) Julie wants to salvage her name by killing herself, but lacks the
power to do the determination. She is made to gain she is inferior to Jean, which is a direct consequence of Strindberg? s personal attitudes. She needs Jean to state her to kill herself and even goes so far as to thank him for giving her the permission.
Strindberg? s Miss Julie is a direct word picture of his ain ideas. It is, in a sense, exposing Darwin? s? Survival of the fittest? theory, The fittest being the male species harmonizing to Strindberg. It shows the dramatic rise of Jean, a retainer, and it? s matching effects on? Her Ladyship? Miss Julie, Who was powerful by manner of her societal position, but reduced because of her gender. There are definite similarities between Miss Julie and the rubric character in Ibsen? s Hedda Gabler. The chief difference, though, is that Hedda does non of all time let herself to be dominated, and maintains till the terminal that she an equal to adult male. This is why I believe that Ibsen wrote Hedda Gabler in answer to Strindberg? s misogynist word picture of a gender war in Miss Julie.
Upon reading Hedda Gabler, ( I examined three versions of this drama, one from the? Drama Classics? [ D.C ] series, an version by John Osborne [ Osborne ] and a interlingual rendition by Nicholas Rundall [ Rundall ] ) I was struck instantly by the position Hedda held whenever she was on phase. Equally shortly as she made her entryway, it was clear that she had all the power within the family. I could see that Tesman felt himself really lucky to hold Hedda as his married woman, and wanted to delight her. Hedda seemed to me to be a really cold, clannish character. She does non possess a sense of temper, but instead a kind of conniving humor. She impolitely commented on Miss Tesman? s new chapeau, and how she thought it was the amahs. As a consequence, I came to dislike Hedda as she continues to hold merriment at the disbursal of others.
The ground, it seems, for Hedda? s evident discourtesy is the fact that she strives against the restraints of the narrow function society allows her ( as we see in Strindberg? s Miss Julie ) and wishes to fulfill her ambitious mind. As it becomes a world to Hedda that she can non make as she desires, she becomes destructive. The girl of a General, Hedda is a natural leader and does non easy suit the mold of a homemaker. She emphasises this by invariably denying her gestation whenever Jorgen references it ( that is, references it indirectly, eg. stating how she is rounded ) . She longs for control over everyone she comes in contact with. It seems to me the lone ground she married Tesman was because she would hold fiscal security as Tesman had an at hand chair, whilst at the same clip still have the ability to rule a dull faculty member. She gets power by pull stringsing her hubby, and at one point even tells Mrs Elvsted ; ? I want the power to determine a adult males destiny? . This is clearly the antonym to Strindberg? s Miss Julie, where Julie had the desire to be dominated by a adult male.
Hedda becomes covetous of Mrs Elvsted? s relationship with Tasman? s rival Lovborg, which is rational and creates a? kid? in the signifier of a manuscript. I find it interesting how she additions power over Lovborg when he comes to see. Lovborg recalls the yesteryear ; ? Did you experience love for me? A spark & # 8230 ; a flicker & # 8230 ; for me? ? ( D.Cp.57 ) , but this flirtation does non hold an consequence on Hedda, even if she would wish to react, she spurns his progresss, therefore giving her high quality over Lovborg, much as she does with Judge Brack, her intimate. He tells how Hedda has ever had power ;
? And Hedda, the things I told you! Thingss about myself. No 1 else
knew, so. My imbibing & # 8230 ; yearss and darks on terminal. I sat there and told
you. Dayss and darks. Oh Hedda, what gave you such power? To do
me tell you & # 8230 ; things like that? ? ( D.C p.58 ) It is Hedda? s green-eyed monster for Lovborg and Mrs Elvsted? s creative relationship which causes her to go destructive and destruct the manuscript, instead than see it back into Lovborg? s custodies, with the of all time powerless Jorgen believing she did it for his interest. As she is firing the manuscript she displays her bitterness towards the relationship ;
? Look, Thea. I? thousand firing your babe, Thea. Little Curly hair!
Your babe & # 8230 ; yours and his.
The babe. Burning the baby. ? ( D.C p.88 ) I struggled to to the full understand why she urged Lovborg to kill himself, but in this context I can merely theorize that it was to farther consolidate the terminal of the relationship between Miss Elvsted and Lovborg, of which she was so covetous.
By the terminal of the drama, Hedda has relinquished all of her power. Lovborg? s decease backfired and Hedda ended up losing the laterality over Jorgen, as he and Mrs Elvsted devote their lives to raising Lovborg? s manuscript and Mrs Elvsted hopes to animate Tesman as she did Lovborg. Brack so establishes power over her through her fright of dirt, blackjacking her in a sense to hold to his footings of life. He could destruct her at any minute by let go ofing the information that the gun which killed Lovborg belonged to Hedda. She finds this thought intolerable ;
? I? m still in your power. At your disposal. A slave. I won? Ts have it. I won? T? ( D.C p.105 )
So Hedda, unable to populate under the control of others, plays a concluding melody on the piano before taking one of her male parents handguns and hiting herself.
Although both Ibsen? s Hedda Gabler and Strindberg? s Miss Julie ended with the self-destruction of the taking character, the fortunes by which the self-destructions occurred were most different, and peculiarly in the instance of Miss Julie, the authors personal ideas were outstanding in the result. Julie ended her life after a deep underlying longing to be dominated by Jean and in the terminal displays her lower status by imploring Jean to give her permission to stop her life. This is unlike the fortunes in Hedda Gabler, where Hedda maintains her self-respect and position to the really terminal. Unlike Julie, she can non bear the idea of being under the control of others. This is why I speculate that Hedda Gabler could really good hold been written by Ibsen in direct answer and contradiction to Strindberg? s Miss Julie. I am certain that Henrik Ibsen would hold found a batch to differ upon when it came to the thoughts and doctrines contained within Strindberg? s Miss Julie, non to advert the dramas foreword.
36a
