Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen

Ghosts (original Norwegian title: Gengangere) is a play by the Norwegian playwright named Henrik Ibsen. It was written in 1881 and first staged in 1883 in Helsingborg, Sweden. This is play with a scathing commentary on 19th century morality and is one of Ibsen’s most powerful works; it was even considered as “Ibsen’s richest or most human play” (Archer 3) in the historical context. However, it was one of the most controversial plays by Henrik Ibsen in which caused an uproar in the Scandinavian press. In Ibsen’s letter to Ludwig Passagre, one of his German translators, he said that “. . . every day I received letters and newspaper articles decrying and praising it . . . I consider it utterly impossible that any German theatre will accept the play at present. I hardly believe that they will dare to play it in the Scandinavian countries for some time to come.” (Archer 1). This shows how it was considered as offensive during that period of conservatism. Other critics even accused of him of being ignorant of the aesthetics and techniques in drama and of preaching Nihilism in this play. On Ibsen’s letter to Schandorph, a Danish novelist, he said that, “They [his critics] that, the book preaches Nihilism. Not at all. It is not concerned to preach anything. It merely points to the ferment of Nihilism going under the surface, at home as elsewhere. Pastor Manders will always goad on one or other; Mrs. Alving, to revolt.” (Archer 2). It also shows how truthful his play is, because its characters reflected real people of the society during that period. But regardless of these disputes against this play, it still continues to popularize during that time.

There are only two people who stood for him: Bjornson and George Brandes, who commended his work for being a “noblest deed” (Archer 1).  Ibsen even wrote to Brandes to extend his gratitude for his support for clarifying what Ibsen had actually written and not the false analysis of those people who read it in that time, “. . . All who read your article must, it seems to me, have their eyes opened to what I meant by my new book. For I cannot get rid of the impression that a very large number of the false interpretations which have appeared in the newspapers are believe to know better. In Norway, however, I am willing to believe that the stultification has in most cases been unintentional. . . In that country a great many of the critics are theologians, more or less disguised; and these gentlemen are, a s a rule, quite unable to write rationally about creative literature . . . are unquestionably our worst critics.” (Archer 1). In this letter, the readers can depict of how Ibsen perceive the character of Pastor Manders in the play. It also shows how realistic and believable the characters Ibsen created for his plays.

Unlike in Doll House which only focus on a single predominant motif about women, this play embodies quite a number of motifs which are considered taboos during that time and even until now. The central themes which are apparent in the play are incest, a venereal disease, a scandalous debauchery in a family and liberalism. However, Ibsen did not merely have in depth expositions of these themes which somehow lead to disarray of ideas. Perhaps, that could be one of the reasons why he was alleged of instigating Nihilism and pointlessness because the play did not even offer any solution to the problems presented by the play. However, in a more contemporary context this text is justified because the text is in a realist mode. In Ibsen letter for Schandorp, he wrote, “My object was to make the reader feel that he was going through a piece of real experience; and nothing could more effectually prevent such an impression than the intrusion of the author’s private opinions into the drama as not to know this? Of course I know it, and act accordingly.” (Archer 2). This substantiates the text itself for the author’s exposition of his own text since many people during that time misinterpreted it.

Ghosts is the story of a woman, Mrs. Alving, the main protagonist in the story, who is preparing for the opening of an orphanage in memory of her husband, Captain Alving, on the decade anniversary of his death. The captain was an important and respected man in his community, and Mrs. Alving plans to raise this one great memorial to him so that she will not have to ever again speak of him. She wants to avoid the awful truth: that he was a cheating, immoral philanderer whose public reputation was a sham. Their son Oswald has come home from Paris with the news that he is dying of syphilis, which he contracted in the womb, and planning to marry the family’s maid. He hopes that she can nurse him as his illness progresses, and Mrs. Alving has to tell him that the maid is actually Captain Alving’s illegitimate daughter.

In this critical paper, the researcher will analyze the text first based on its content, specifically the main characters and the motifs. Furthermore, the researcher will discuss this drama using its political, cultural and social context to understand the text and its significance better. Symbols, like the constant mention of Mrs. Alving of the ghosts will also be discussed to strengthen the arguments that shall be raised. The characters that are intended to be tackled are Mrs. Alving, Pastor Manders, Oswald Alving, Regina Engstrand and Jakob Engstrand. The clashing of ideologies of the characters is evident and thus, it will be scrutinized and interpreted on the contextual basis. Their behaviors and dialogues will also be examined to see the development and justification of their characters. I will use the process of Derrida’s Deconstruction in analyzing the text, but I shall focus more on the binary opposition, specifically liberation and conservatism which is visibly manifested in the text. Conservatism is basically the ideology of conforming and believing in customs and traditions. On the other hand, liberalism is essentially about being a free-spirit and eccentric for not following the usual conventions.

Regina And Jakob Engstrand

On the opening of the play, it shows how Regina does not treat Mr. Engstrand the way a daughter should treat her father, “Never in this world shall get me home with you. . . Is it me you wanted to go home with you? – To a house like yours? For shame!” (Ibsen 3). It foregrounds her rebelliousness as a daughter, although at the end, the audience will know that Mr. Engstrand is not her legitimate father. Then, he invited her to live with him again because he shall need her help since he is about to establish a new business for the sailors, but Regina refused to and so he told her, “Now don’t be a fool and stand in your own light, Regina. What’s to become of you out here? Your mistress has given you a lot of learning; but what good is that to you? You’re to look after the children at the new orphanage, I hear. Is that the sort of things for you, eh? Are you dead set on wearing your life out for a pack of dirty brats?” (Ibsen 4). In these lines it shows how Mr. Engstrand is encouraging her illegitimate daughter to get out of Mrs. Alving’s control over her life because she would just be jaded eventually if she continued living with her. She will not grow if she continues staying in that house and that would hinder her seeing another world outside Mrs. Alving’s house. He is even offering her daughter a kind of immoral job, “Then never mind of marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. He– the Englishman—the man with the yacht—he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn’t a bit handsomer than you.” (Ibsen 5). He is literally provoking her daughter to be a prostitute to earn a lot of money but Regina refused. That was considered a taboo during that time, because it does not only challenges the notion of that prostitution is prohibited but also the mishandling of a father of his own responsibility to her daughter. This presages the concept of liberalism in the text.

At the end of the play, it determines Regina’s utter liberation in her ideas, “A poor girl must make the best of her young days, or she’ll be left out in the cold before she knows where she is. And I, too, have the joy of life in me, Mrs. Alving!” (Ibsen 48). When she found out that she was an illegitimate daughter and Oswald, her love interest is invalid, she becomes afraid of wasting her life inside the four walls of that house, hindering her to discover more opportunities about life. She forgets then, that she is ought to show gratitude towards the family that provides her the living she had in the past few years because the idea of being stocked up without any direction causes her anxiety. Due to her liberty also because she is then considered as an orphan and her disappointment of knowing the truth, she even welcomed the possibility of her, serving in the “Chamberlain Alving’s Home”, a place where rich sailors spend their time while they are away from home.

Mrs. Helene Alving

Mrs. Helene Alving is one of the main characters of the play. Her character is quite vague because she can be both liberal and conservative at times. However, she is more inclined as non-conformist especially during her conversations with Pastor Manders. Her first clear statement of revolt is shown when she said, “A healthy lad is all the better for it; especially when he’s an only child. He oughtn’t to hang on home with his father and mother, and get spoilt.” (Ibsen 15). And that is quickly rebutted by Pastor Manders, “That is very disputable point, Mrs. Alving. A child’s proper place is, and must be, the home of his father’s.” (Ibsen 15). This exchange of thoughts shows how Mrs. Alving’s open-mindedness of things which might be quite non-conventional during that time (She sent Oswald away from home at the age of seven.) because she knows that too much sheltering of a child might cause the dependency of the child to his parents and less possibility of the child standing alone. Nonetheless, it also shows how Pastor Manders sticks to the traditional ways of the family, in which the child should stay on the care and guidance of his parents no matter what, because that is what families used to do even during the earlier periods.

At the middle of the conversation of Mrs. Alving and Pastor Manders, the clergy accuses her of fleeing away from home even though Mr. Alving begged and prayed for her to stay. At first, without knowing the truth, one must say that she is a rebellious wife. Pastor Manders even commented that, “It is the very mark of the spirit of the rebellion to crave for happiness in this life. What rights have we human beings to happiness? We have simply to do our duty, Mrs. Alving! And your duty was to hold firmly to the man you had once chosen, and to whom you are bound by the holiest ties.” (Ibsen 18). Here, the readers can see again the divergence of their beliefs and the formation of Pastor Manders’ disposition on the church teachings.

Another scene wherein Mrs. Alving breaks away from the norm is when she questioned the usage and value of law and order, “Oh, that perpetual law and order! I often think that is what does all the mischief in this world of ours. . .  I can’t help it; I must have done with all this constraint and insincerity. I can endure it no longer. I must work on my way out to freedom.” (Ibsen 24). In this scene, the readers can see the progress of Mrs. Alving’s character and she even acknowledged the fact that she is a coward before. At first, she was this timid wife who thinks for the betterment of her family, but then she eventually realized that she needs to grow too as an individual; as a woman. And this attitude shocked Pastor Manders, for letting him see the other side of her which can fall on the category of an “emancipated woman”. She reverts on the normative ways of the traditional women, in which women are ought to stay at home to serve her family and follow the church’s teachings. Although at the near end of the play, the story behind Mrs. Alving’s deviation from the tradition is that she had a traumatic experience about it, “They had taught me a great deal about duties and so forth, which I went on obstinately believing in. everything was marked out into duties—into my duties, and—I am afraid I made his home intolerable for your poor father, Oswald.” (Ibsen 47). It shows that Mrs. Alving was once a conservative for always being obedient of her responsibilities and the conventions, but that also became the reason why her husband became unhappy of her, because during those moments she became dull or lousy for him since she was not able to give the life and joy Mr. Alving wanted.

She is a strong woman bearing all the grim misdeeds of her own husband and all the false accusations of the people around her while she is keeping that secret for the good of her own husband. But she could not bear for her son to witness the immorality of his father and so she send him away for him not to be “poisoned by merely breathing the air of this polluted home” (Ibsen 21).

Another significant concept of the play is also mentioned by her characters and that is when she overheard Oswald taking advantage of Regina and she was horrified, remembering what her husband exactly did before, “Ghosts! The couple from the conservatory—rose again!” (Ibsen 22).And she was more appalled thinking that Regina and Oswald are siblings because they have the same father. Another citation of “ghosts” is apparent on the latter part, “Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was as though ghosts rose up before me. But I almost think we are all of us ghosts, Pastor Manders. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that ‘walks’ in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. . . There must be ghosts all over the country. . . And then we are one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.” (Ibsen 26). I think this is the most powerful lines in the text. It captures the spirit of liberalism by contending on the good old ideologies from dead people being imposed to us. The “ghosts” being referred in the text are the traditions, customs and passé beliefs created by dead people. They haunt us, like ghosts, and scare us which hindering us to know the “light” or the truth. During that time wherein conservatism is still prevalent, the people were more inclined to reside on the realm of the “dark” because they were still scared of knowing the truth and liberty. Those lines are followed by other compelling lines from Mrs. Alving herself, “When you forced me under the yoke of what you called duty and obligation; when you lauded as right and proper what my whole soul rebelled against as something loathsome. It was then that I began to look into the seams of your doctrines. I wanted only to pick at a single knot; but when I had got that undone, the whole thing unraveled out. And then I understood that it was all machine-sewn.” (Ibsen 26). These lines show how Mrs. Alving “deconstructed” the idea of tradition itself and finally comprehended the fact that it was just constructed by the society itself and that does not mean that there are no other ideas behind these so-called lies of the religious fanatics.

Lastly, there is an interesting point at the near end of their conversation in which the text reveals to the readers that Pastor Manders and Mrs. Alving had a quite intimate relationship before although Pastor Manders refuses to admit it because that is against the law. She even teased him, “I have half a mind to put my arms around your neck and kiss you.” (Ibsen 32). Again, it is a scene which is considered another deviation from the rule during that time since it is about a widow, in a way, seducing a pastor, who is forbidden to make any illicit affairs.

Pastor Manders`

Pastor Manders, on the other hand, is the concrete caricature of the conservative clergy during that time. He always tends to follow the rules constructed and imposed by the society because he aims everything to be in “All—in perfect order” (Ibsen 10). Also, he, as tackled previously is a preachy-type which is primarily evident to his conversations with Mrs. Alving, especially in the scene wherein he stated that a wife ought to act and behave according to the tradition, “But a wife is not appointed to be her husband’s judge. It was your duty to bear with humility the cross which a Higher Power had, in its wisdom, laid upon you. But instead of that you rebelliously throw away that cross, desert the backslider whom you should have supported, go and risk your good name and reputation, and—nearly succeed in ruining other people’s reputation.” (Ibsen 18). He is obviously acting and teaching according to what the rules and ideologies he believes in and he is faithful on it. He even attempts to refuse to admit any form of emancipation even to the point of just choosing a profession, because that would destroy his beliefs and that is shown to his first refusal of Oswald being a painter, although he changed his mind when he thought he has proven that not all painters lose their beliefs in religion, “. . . You must not think that I utterly condemn the artist’s calling. I have no doubt there are many who keep their inner self unharmed in that profession, as in any other.” (Ibsen 14). In this scene, although it was not directly stated, the readers can view how a partial the pastor is because he has idea in his mind that when one became an artist that also connotes of one being liberal in his thoughts because one will be exposed to various ideologies and he declines that possibility.

Another thing about him is that due to that frame of mind, he does not allow himself to understand the side of Mrs. Alving. He is too close-minded of the perceptions of liberation because for his religion, that is evil or improper. And going against the fixed rules, in which it instigates how Pastor Manders think collectively,”But what is the general feeling of the neighborhood. . . Who might be scandalized?” (Ibsen 11). He is asking for the approval of others and not thinking independently. Thus, the readers might say that he is concern that a scandal might happen and that would ruin the “order” present in their community.

He also even castigated Mrs. Alving because he perceived that she is just living for the sake of her own happiness and her stubbornness without following the laws imposed by the society and the church, “Everything that weighed upon you in life you have cast away without care or conscience, like a burden you were free to throw off at will. It did not please you to be a wife any longer, and you left your husband. You found it troublesome to be a mother, and you sent child forth among strangers.” (Ibsen 19). It is a grave offense of the pastor himself, to think all these matters he is throwing off to Mrs. Alving are just mere speculations of the public. He is not even sure if this is all the truth or not and he is condemning a woman without knowing her side which is considered as a biased judgment being committed. After that, Mrs. Alving defended herself from a pastor, which is considered revolting against those people in the church in the historical context. It demonstrates not only the freedom of one voicing out opinions, but a woman, who has guts of speaking out and showing the pastor his own errors.

On the other hand, it is also noteworthy to see another weakness of Pastor Manders when Mr. Engstrand manipulates the doctrines of the church during his conversation with him, “Isn’t it right and proper for a man to raise up the fallen? And isn’t it a man bound to keep his scared word?” (Ibsen 29). These lines depict how Mr. Engtrand overturning the fact so that it appears that he had just done well. He lied to the church by accepting Johanna but he tries to cover it up by telling Pastor Manders the goodness of what he did. But the point here is that, it depicts the weakness of the clergy and how Pastor Manders believes Mr. Engstrand although he is just vexing their argument.

Oswald Alving

Oswald is the pure representation of liberalism in the play. He is both an artist and a free thinker who lived a bohemian life while he was away from home. His dialogues reflect the ideology he has, “But in the great world people won’t hear of such things. There, nobody really believes such doctrines any longer. There you feel it a positive bliss and ecstasy merely to draw the breath of life. Mother, have you noticed that everything I painted has turned upon the joy of life? That is why I am afraid of staying home with you.” (Ibsen 40). These lines indicate the free-spirit Oswald possesses in which he is not afraid not to conform, but to explore the limitless possibility of the happiness life could bring.

In the part wherein Oswald and Pastor Manders are arguing a point about the “well-ordered family” (Ibsen 16), it depicts the discrepancies of their beliefs. Pastor Manders refuse to accept that families can exist even without marriage because that is against the consecrated laws, but Oswald is disclosing to him his experiences of seeing families without even the bond of marriage but can still be considered as happy families. Again, it indicates the conservatism of Pastor Manders by always taking the side of the conventions, while Oswald is being an unprejudiced about the different customs and beliefs of other people. That idea is also evident in the lines, “But how is it possible that a—a young man or a young woman with any decency of feeling can endure to live in that way?—in the eyes of all the world!” Pastor Manders, (Ibsen 16). In which it shows the reason why the pastor always tends to do what is accepted as normal by the society because he is afraid of what the people might judge. He is always consider what the people has to say, without acknowledging the fact that those people themselves are prejudiced and biased.

Then, Oswald mentions that he even visited the “irregular homes” during Sunday and Pastor Manders reacted appallingly to it because in the Christian context, it is the Lord’s Day and therefore, none should do immoral acts on this day. Oswald is not actually doing anything wrong since he just want to be learn from those people, but in the fanaticism context of Christianity, that is considered wrong.

In the end of the play, although the readers saw how Mrs. Alving is liberal in her thoughts, she still conforms on some traditional ideas in that time which made her character a little more complex, “Ought not a son to love his father, whatever happens?” (Ibsen 49). However, Oswald responded to her that, “When a son has nothing to thank his father for? Has never known him? Do you really cling to the old superstition?—you who are enlightened in other ways?” (Ibsen 49). This determines how Oswald, throughout the play, remains a free-thinker. Then, Mrs. Alving uttered again, “Ghosts!” which is discussed earlier as fixed traditions that continuously disturb and hold back people in doing what they really want. Through this, it shows how even labels such as father, does not have a stable meaning and is both relative and subjective. In the theory of deconstruction, it is the signifier which signifies different things, depending to whose perspective.

Conclusion

The typical Scandinavian aspect in this play is the portrayal of women. Scandinavia is known for their gender equality, but like in The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo which subverts that notion, this play shows some subversion of female characters like Johanna and Mrs. Alving (During the time when her husband is sleeping around with women and she was suffering because of that. And another scene is when Pastor Manders attempting to dominate in their conversations at first and rebutting what Mrs. Alving were saying.). Nevertheless, on the other level, it also shows the power of women in the society which is shown by Regina and Mrs. Alving on the latter part of the play. The portrayal of the two faces of women can also be attributed to the conservative and liberal facets. The first face in which it challenges the typical impression of gender equality in Scandinavia falls on the liberal side. And on the other hand, the face in which it sticks to the common notion is the conservative side.

The dichotomy of conservatism and liberalism has always been also prevalent during that period in Scandinavian countries, which is also evident of the critics against Ibsen as mentioned in the introductory part of this critical paper. The characters have depicted the predominantly two opposing views which serve as commentaries of the exact situation during the time the text was written; the negative critics thrown to Ibsen and the supporters of Ibsen are good examples to prove that. It is apparently a social commentary made by Ibsen not to shock or to offend the people of his time, but to unveil to them his standpoints as a transition from conservatism to liberalism.

I would also like to raise the point that the text itself subtly deconstructs the idea of conservatism and paving its way on the principles of liberalism. By challenging the customs, labels, stereotypes and old beliefs, it positions the viewers to look at the different side of things and that is also one of the essential functions of liberalism. In the context of deconstruction, the deconstructionist does not subscribe to the “myth” or the established beliefs by the society, but re-examining it on an in-depth manner. This might also be parallel to liberalism, in which the liberals do not only go against the fixed customs just for the sake of not coinciding with them, but they challenge them because they know that at some point, those doctrines are not the truth and that is distinctly palpable in Ghosts. Ibsen might have been really questioned about this another type of dogma in the earlier times, especially by the opposing party, but this play is an audacious way of showing another aspect of human’s ideology in that time.