Larkin 1

Katie Larkin

Dr. Voorhees

LIT-322

November 29, 2004

The Act of Courage

Henrik Ibsen’s plays have been called controversial since they were first viewed in the nineteenth century for their comments on society, and in particular, the role of women. For example, Nora of A Doll’s House is shocking because, in her emancipation from marriage, she abandons her children. Nora forfeits the traditional role of mother, a role that Ibsen once called a woman’s reason to be (Templeton 230). The independent, freedom-desiring woman can be seen repeated in many of Ibsen’s plays, as well as other stock women. Joan Templeton references James Huneker and Janko Lavrin in defining Ibsen’s returning women as either “‘eternal womanly’” or “‘the destructive feminine’” (24). Bjorn Hemmer claims that both of these types of women “are freer than men when it comes to the social situation; and in consequence they are truer and more complete” (80). Hedda of Hedda Gabler clearly develops into the destructive feminine as she acts out “the last two days of a cornered woman’s increasingly futile effort to live a life she despises and her consequent decision to end it” (Templeton 211). Hedda destroys Lovborg’s manuscript, Lovborg himself, as well as her own body and unborn child. To fulfill the eternal womanly role, Ibsen gives his readers Thea Elvsted. Thea acts as a foil to Hedda in physicality, personality, and convictions.

The most concrete contrast between these two women is that of Hedda and Thea’s hair (Durbach 243). As Ibsen describes her, Hedda’s hair is “of an agreeable medium brown, but not particularly abundant” (Ibsen 7) while Thea’s hair is “remarkably light, almost flaxen, and unusually abundant and wavy” (Ibsen 11-12). This difference, the reader finds later, is a point of jealously for Hedda. Thea recalls Hedda pulling her hair when they were in school (15) and, later, Hedda threatens to burn off Thea’s hair (45). Perhaps this description of hair can be read as symbolic: Hedda is sparse and emotionally barren, as is her hair, whereas Thea is full of life and, as we eventually see, courage. But the differences between Hedda and Thea go much deeper than physical appearance, and Thea’s opposite nature serves to emphasize Hedda’s behavior. Throughout the play, the reader understands that Thea is able to emancipate herself, while maintaining her femininity through maternal behavior and showing an amazing amount of courage. Hedda, on the other hand, is trapped in her marriage and cowardly when it comes to change.

One significant difference between Thea and Hedda is their reaction to the maternal instinct: “…Hedda is pregnant, but not motherly, while the childless Thea is maternal” (Templeton 230). Hedda is disgusted by the life growing in her, probably because it belongs to the husband that disgusts her. It is obvious to the audience that Hedda is pregnant after her six-month honeymoon, but she refuses to verbalize this fact until forced. The very act of suicide while pregnant shows the readers that Hedda does not care for the child within her. By rejecting motherhood, Hedda rejects what Ibsen sees as a woman’s “raison d’etre,” or reason to be (Templeton 230). According to Mayerson, in “emotionally repudiating her unborn child, Hedda rejects what Ibsen considered woman’s opportunity to advance the march of progress….” by giving birth to and bringing up the next generation (132).

Thea, on the other hand, is incredibly maternal while physically barren. She has no children of her own, yet refers to the manuscript she worked on with Lovborg as her child (57). Thea shows great love for this manuscript—a symbolic act of creation between her and Lovborg—and devotes herself to recreating it, along with Tesman, after Lovborg’s death. While it is true that, like Nora, Thea has abandoned her stepchildren, she maintains the aspect of maternal love that Hedda has never exhibited.

The most important contrast between these two women is their exhibition of courage—or, in Hedda’s case, lack thereof. This courage can be seen in two distinct areas: courage in each woman’s marriage and courage in pursuing a relationship with Eilert Lovborg. In general, we are to see that Thea shuns societal norms to live how she wants; she believes that people will think what they want no matter what she does, so why not be happy. As Mayerson writes, Thea has “lost herself to find herself, [and] she almost instinctively breaks with the mores of her culture in order to ensure continuance of function…. she is the most truly emancipated person in the play” (Mayerson 133). Hedda, on the other hand, is scared of scandal. This fear is what leads to her suicide: she is too afraid of the consequences of her behavior that she cannot face them, and death is her only option. Hedda is “still too much the victim of traditional thinking to move from hysteria to feminism” (Finney 100).

Regarding their marriages, both women have married out of necessity: Hedda even states that she married Tesman because she was in her late twenties and felt that he might be her last chance. Focusing solely on marrying into a state that would perpetuate the luxury to which she was accustomed, Hedda overlooked her other needs until it was too late: in marrying for money Hedda gave up on love. While acknowledging that “as you make your bed so you must lie,” it is obvious that Hedda finds no friendship or comfort in her partner, Tesman (Ibsen 31). Furthermore, as Hedda is a headstrong, independent woman, Clurman states that she “will allow no man to dominate her” (162). However, in her fear to transgress in the eyes of society and create a scandal, Hedda becomes “imbedded, [and] trapped in bourgeois mores,” dominated by both her husband and Brack (Clurman 162). In short, Hedda “lacks the courage to slam the door on an unloved husband” (Clurman 164).

Thea Elvsted, whom Hedda terms “poor stupid woman,” has the courage to go against the values and criticisms of society to pursue her happiness (Clurman 162). As Clurman writes, “Mrs. Elvsted… has the candid courage that Hedda, the lady of high society… cannot muster (Clurman 162). While Thea admittedly abandons her husband and loveless marriage, along with her stepchildren, she manages to perform the courageous act that sets her apart from the cowardly Hedda.

Both women also demonstrate their opposing levels of courage in regards to how they handle their personal feelings for Eilert Lovborg. Hedda and Thea both possess deep feelings for Lovborg, Hedda’s from the past and Thea’s from the present. The key difference is in how these women react to these feelings. As Clurman writes, “That Hedda desired Lovborg is explicitly stated in his scene with her. Her rejection of him is plainly set forth… as a result of her fear of transgressing social taboos” (Clurman 165). Spurning her once-intimate friendship with Lovborg, Hedda rejects any sort of romantic love, instead opting to base her marriage choice on society’s expectations. Thea, on the other hand, leaves her marriage and family, inviting society’s scorn, to be with the man with whom she shares a deep friendship.

When Hedda is confronted with the relationship between the man she once loved—and still may love—and the woman with luxurious hair, jealousy ensues. Once again, Hedda cannot be honest in her actions, instead manipulating those around her. She is resentful of Thea’s “capacity to arouse in Lovborg the will to discipline himself and to realize his talent,” while she herself is only able to “‘inspire’ him to suicide”(Clurman 164). In retaliation Hedda flexes her influence over Lovborg, sending him back to his drinking problem and undoing all the good Thea had accomplished. She also, in a fit of anger, viciously burns the manuscript Lovborg and Thea worked on together, all the while intentionally referring to it as Thea’s child (Ibsen 59). Thea is psychologically able to make the decision to follow her heart and do what would make her happy—in spite of societal taboos, whereas Hedda is paralyzed by her fears and unable to be happy.

So what does this stark contrast between two women show the Ibsen’s audience? First, Thea acts as a foil to the character of Hedda by emphasizing her lack of maternal desire and lack of courageous behavior. By having the character of Thea, Hedda is humanized. As Mayerson writes,

Hedda is a woman, not a monster; neurotic, but not psychotic. Thus, she may be held accountable for her behavior. But she is spiritually sterile. Her yearning for self-realization through exercise of her natural endowments is in conflict with her enslavement to a narrow standard of conduct. (132)

Essentially, Hedda tries to make the right decisions in her life. She believes that in choosing Tesman she will assure herself a place in society and a living state to which she is accustomed. Only too late does she realize that a marriage of convenience is not a marriage, and certainly is not satisfying. Thea sees this, too, in her marriage to Mr. Elvsted, as she admits that her husband regards her simply as “useful property” (Ibsen 17). Where the two women differ is that Thea is willing to take action to change her life. Thea admits that she “could bear it no longer,” so she leaves her husband and goes to her lover (Ibsen 17). The uncharacteristic thing (for a woman of the nineteenth century) is that Thea sees leaving as her only choice and refuses to ever go back to him (17).

Hedda, though, “comes to realize the full horror of the entrapment of her bargain marriage and chooses to destroy herself rather than continue a life she abhors” (Templeton 317). She is paralyzed by her fear. She does not understand Thea’s actions, responding with incredulity:

“But what do you think people will say of you, Thea?”

“They may say what they like, for aught I care. I have done nothing but what I had to do.” (Ibsen 18)

We can conclude that Ibsen utilizes the character of Thea “to indicate a way to freedom which Hedda never apprehends” (Mayerson 123).

Furthermore, these two women and their dualistic reactions to specific situations serve to illustrate Ibsen’s theme: “the imperative of acting from a free conscience” (Clurman 165). We are meant to see Hedda as a failed example—a failed feminist, perhaps. Hedda, while fiercely and passionately unhappy in her marriage, unhappy to the point of suicide, is frozen by her fear of what other’s will think. Her fear of scandal prevents her action. Thea is the woman who accomplishes her goal, she takes the risk and the initiative to better her own life. She does not care what others think and that is what makes her life a success in the end. That is what Ibsen wants his readers to understand from these two women: both are faced with loveless marriages; one acts, and acts with courage.

Works Cited

Clurman, Harold. Ibsen. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Durbach, Errol. “A century of Ibsen criticism.” The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Ed.

James McFarlane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.

Finney, Gail. “Ibsen and feminism.” The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Ed. James

McFarlane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. 89-105.

Hemmer, Bjorn. “Ibsen and the realistic problem drama.” The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen.

Ed. James McFarlane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. 68-88.

Ibsen, Henrik. Hedda Gabler. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1990.

Lowenthal, Leo. “Henrik Ibsen: Motifs in the Realistic Plays.” Literature and the Image of

Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957. Rpt. in Ibsen A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Rolf Fjelde. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic-Hall, Inc., 1965. 139-157.

Mayerson, Caroline W. "Thematic Symbols in Hedda Gabler." Scandinavian Studies 22 (1950):

151-160. Rpt. in Ibsen A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Rolf Fjelde. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic-Hall, Inc., 1965. 131-138.

Templeton, Joan. Ibsen's Women. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.

Works Consulted

Durbach, Errol. “Introduction: ‘Ibsen the Romantic.’” Ibsen the Romantic. London:

Macmillan, 1982. 1-8. Rpt. in Critical Essays on Henrik Ibsen. Ed. Charles R. Lyons. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1987. 167-173.

Downs, Brian. “Modern Problems.” Ibsen: The Intellectual Background. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1946. 136-169. Rpt. in Critical Essays on Henrik Ibsen. Ed. Charles R. Lyons. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1987. 111-131

Kerans, James E. “Ibsen and the Structure of the Mind.” Modern Drama: Essays in Criticism.

Ed. Travis Bogard and William I. Oliver. New York: Oxford UP, 1965. 192-208. Rpt. in Critical Essays on Henrik Ibsen. Ed. Charles R. Lyons. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1987. 133-146.

Meyer, Michael. Henrik Ibsen The Making of a Dramatist 1828-1864. London: Rupert Hart-

Davis, 1967.

Meyer, Michael. Ibsen A Biography. NY: Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1971.

Moses, Montrose J. Henrik Ibsen The Man and His Plays. New York: Mitchell Kennerley, 1908.
Northan, John. “Ibsen’s Dramatic Form The Reconstruction of Elements of Structure.” Ibsen’s

Dramatic Method. London: Faber, 1948. 147-171. Rpt. in Critical Essays on Henrik Ibsen. Ed. Charles R. Lyons. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1987. 175-194.

Rhodes, Norman. Ibsen and the Greeks. Cranbury: Bucknell UP, 1995.

Tennant, P. F. D. “The Exposition.” Ibsen’s Dramatic Technique. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

1948. 89-109. Rpt. in Critical Essays on Henrik Ibsen. Ed. Charles R. Lyons. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1987. 195-21