Of all the dramatists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Henrik Ibsen ranks among the most influential. His works tended to address social and moral issues that people would rather not face. Ibsen’s works show unconventional morals and often lead people to question their own morality.

Henrik Johan Ibsen was born in the city of Skien in Norway, on March 20, 1828. He was the second child of Knud Ibsen and Marichen Altenburg. Their first child Johan Ibsen died at age two, making Henrik’s mother over protective of her other children. Until Henrik turned three they lived in the Stockmann House, which incidentally coincides with the name used by Ibsen in the play An Enemy of the People. When Henrik turned three, they moved to a house near a brook, that Ibsen in his later life recalled with much clarity. He remembered mostly the sounds of the waters, describing them as “sometimes like the shrieks and sometimes like the moans of women. Hundreds of buzz saws were working in the falls” (qtd. in Koht 28). While he lived in Skien his family had an active social life; there are many recordings of his family attending balls and dinners (Koht 26- 28).

In 1835, the Ibsen family hit upon hard times. Debt forced Knud Ibsen to sell his house and move everyone to the family farm in Venstøp. While there, Ibsen kept very much to himself, reading and painting. He made himself a reading nook in the closet, and quietly pored through large volumes that his sister later surmised must have included the bible along with the great sages of Norway. He loved to peruse the volumes of books left in his attic by the sailor known as “The Flying Dutchman” (Koht 29).

He remained introversive until the age of twelve when he discovered girls. Because of his good looks, and well-kept manner he made a good dancing partner at the local dances. However he was a bad dancer, so he would generally “break in” one girl and dance with her all evening. At fourteen, he began to write poetry. He loved to read his poems to girls, but they hardly ever understood, calling it incomprehensible (Koht 35).

Although he did not have the money to enter Latin school, Ibsen studied Latin in hopes that he could take the University entrance examination. Although Ibsen wanted to become a writer, his parents had other ideas. When he turned fifteen, they had him enrolled as an apprentice to a pharmacist in Grimstad. The years he spent in Grimstad were trying on him; he made very little money, and had almost no friends. Humiliation filled these years. His humiliation only grew worse when he had an illegitimate child with a servant girl nearly ten years older than him (Koht 37-38).

In 1850, Ibsen moved to Oslo to take the examination and enter the University. Even though he failed parts of the examination, they allowed him to begin the study of medicine (Meyer 2). However, once admitted he dropped the study of medicine to study literature. While in Oslo, Ibsen began to write poetry, not the poetry of his earlier years, but poetry he referred to as “idea poetry.” He published these poems, under the pseudonym Brynjolf Bjarne, to earn the extra money he desperately needed (Koht 68). In 1951, a man named Ole Bull invited Ibsen to run National Norwegian Theater in Bergen. He stayed in this position until 1857, when he took the job as stage director of the Norske Teatret. These years were among the gloomiest of his life, the theater forced Ibsen to produce only popular drama, and his salary was extraordinarily small. Ibsen married Susannah Thoresen in 1858, and in 1859 had his only legitimate son who he named Sigurd Ibsen. In 1864, Ibsen left Norway and lived abroad with his family until 1891. During this time, he published his truly great works, including Ghosts (1881), An Enemy of the People (1883), and The Wild Duck (1885). In 1891, Ibsen moved back to Oslo where he lived out the remainder of his life (Meyer 5-7).

Most critics split Ibsen’s writing up into three distinct stages. In his first stage, Ibsen uses romantic tools to make ironic statements. His second stage consists of plays written with realism and a concern for social affairs, and in his last stage, he uses symbolism to make his point. The three plays Ghosts, An Enemy of the People, and The Wild Duck represent a good cross section of Ibsen’s work as a playwright, including two of the three stages. The play Ghosts falls into Ibsen’s second stage of writing. Ghosts epitomizes this era of writing (Bryfonski 217).

The entire play of Ghosts takes place in the library of the Alving household. It opens with Jacob Engstrand coming to ask Regina, the household maid, to help him start a sailor’s home in the city. While they talk, Jacob reminds Regina she has daughterly duties to him, her father. After he leaves, Pastor Manders enters and talks with the widow, Mrs. Alving. At first, they discuss the financial issues of the orphanage, deciding that they should not buy insurance for the orphanage because people might doubt her faith in God. Shortly, the conversation moves in other directions. We learn that Mrs. Alving’s son, Oswald, has just returned from Paris. We also learn a great deal about the late Mr. Alving. As it turns out Mr. Alving, a philanderer, fathered Regina with the household maid. The act ends with Oswald making sexual advances on Regina, his sister.

The next act opens after dinner, with Mrs. Alving and Manders talking about ending the budding relationship between Regina and Oswald. After a short while, Engstrand enters and asks Manders to lead a prayer in the orphanage. He leaves, and Oswald tells his mother that the doctors in Paris diagnosed him with a disease, whose symptoms sound very much like those of syphilis. He continues to talk about Regina, so Mrs. Alving invites her to sit and drink champagne with them. Pastor Manders returns from the prayer service and makes an effort to tell Oswald and Regina about their relationship, but before he can, they spot the orphanage burning down.

In the last act, Mrs. Alving tells Manders that she does not intend to rebuild the orphanage and that he can do as he pleases with the remainder of the money. Engstrand claims that Manders burnt down the orphanage even though evidence points towards Engstrand himself. Engstrand uses this claim to blackmail Manders into giving the extra money to him to start his sailors’ home. Then Mrs. Alving tells Regina and Oswald that they are in fact siblings, and Regina learns of Oswald’s disease. Regina immediately begins plans to leave the household. Mrs. Alving promises to care for Oswald in his sickness, and he gives her some pills that he planned to tell Regina to give him when his sickness strikes again. As the play ends, Oswald’s sickness destroys his brain, and Mrs. Alving opens the case of pills, deciding whether to give them to Oswald.

The play Ghosts compares traditional viewpoints with those of the new generation. Philo Buck calls this type of play a “social drama” (qtd. in Bryfonski 227). There are many of these comparisons throughout the entire play. The most startling of these comparisons lies in the compared morality between the pastor, Manders, and Oswald. Oswald has lived in Paris for quite some time, and due to this, his morals are representative of the young fresh world. He treats marriage flippantly, and seems to have little respect for its sanctity. Age and profession set Manders’ morality at a much different level, representative of an old, outdated world, notably his apposing vision of marriage as the unbreakable bond. Ibsen constantly harps back on this comparison of morals. Every character in the story has their own set of morals compared against one another throughout the entire play. Manders’ views represent old-fashioned morals, with concerns for appearances. Oswald represents new age morals that are down to earth, and very loose. Mrs. Alving represents morals in question, and changing morals. Jacob Engstrand represents no morals, with blatant lying, and no remorse. Regina represents similar morals, however less obtrusive. Ibsen presents these morals to us with this question, which morals do you have? It is refreshing however, that Ibsen does not preach his morals to us; instead he presents us with facts and instances and lets us draw our own conclusions (Buck 227). While Ibsen lets us make up our own mind, he does tip the scales in favor of his favorite team. Most readers of Ghosts do not identify with Pastor Manders; they identify more with Mrs. Alving’s changing views or with the views of Oswald. Ibsen once said, “I hold that man is in the right who is most closely in league with the future.” From this, we can tell that Ibsen had a bias toward the side of the new ideals (Shaw 145).

At first glance, Ghosts looks like a play about a boy with syphilis, and the tribulations of his mother. However, I found upon closer inspection that the play has nothing to do with these things; rather it focuses entirely on moral corruption. Ibsen symbolizes the corruption in a number of ways. Oswald’s disease, inherited from his father, symbolizes the moral corruption handed down from previous generations. The symbols appear again when Oswald picks up the habits of his father, smoking his pipe, drinking constantly, and most notably, making sexual passes at the family maid. Oswald’s doctor states this theme explicitly, “The sins of the father are visited on the children” (109).

The Norwegian title Gengangre translates exactly to “returners.” Many things return throughout the play. The morning returns, while Mrs. Alving is trying to return to a clear conscience. The memory of Mr. Alving is returning, and Oswald has returned from Paris. Engstrand returns to convince Regina to come with him. “The sins of the father are visited on the children” (109), these sins return to “haunt” Oswald

An Enemy of the People published in 1882, only one year after Ghosts, also fits into the category of “social drama.” Ibsen’s second stage of writing, focusing on social and moral issues in a realistic way, includes this play. An Enemy of the People, somewhat longer than Ghosts, begins Ibsen’s trend for five act plays.

The play begins in Dr. Stockmann’s home, with various members of the community present for dinner, namely Hovstad, the editor of the “People’s Messenger”, Billing, sub editor, and Captain Horster, captain of a local merchant vessel. While they are there, Dr. Stockmann receives a letter indicating water pollution in the town’s “baths.” Dr. Stockmann sends immediate notice to his brother, the mayor and head of the “baths” committee. The group in the house worries for the safety of the town, but at the same time rejoices that he made the discovery in time to save the town.

The second act begins with the reading of Mayor Stockmann’s response to the doctor’s letter. He did not believe the letter, and shows up later to talk directly to his brother. Meanwhile, Hovstad shows up to speak with Dr. Stockmann about the “baths.” So too shows up Alaskan, head of the compact majority of the Householders’ Association. He proclaims that the compact majority supports the doctor. After they leave, Peter Stockmann, the mayor, arrives. The information sent him by his brother, displeases him a lot, and he makes no effort to hide it. He has checked with the town architect and estimated the cost of the suggested modifications to be twenty thousand pounds, and would take two years to complete. The mayor points out that this would ruin the business, and subsequently the future of the town. He tells his brother that unless he refutes his claims, “Then I shall not be able to prevent your being dismissed” (160).

Act three takes place in the printing room of the “Peoples Messenger.” The scene begins with Hovstad, Billing, and Alaskan all in agreement to publish Thomas Stockmann’s work. However, the mayor pays a visit, and convinces them that it would be against their best interest to go along with the doctor, as the renovations would cost the taxpayers, and take two years to complete. The conflict comes to a head when Dr. Stockmann shows up again to check on the progress of his manuscript. He finds his brother there, and the doctor finds that the entire community has turned against him. He does not despair however, and continues to fight for the truth.

A meeting of the townspeople, in the home of Captain Horster, dominates act four. Dr. Stockmann has called the meeting to discuss the issue of the “baths.” However, before he can even talk his brother takes control of the assembly, and forbids him to speak about the baths. This results in Dr. Stockmann being driven from the meeting by an angry crowd, after he vents his anger and frustration. The townspeople call him an enemy of the people and chase him back to his house where they throw stones through his windows.

The last act takes place back in the home of Dr. Stockmann, bringing the story full circle. We see the devastation that Dr. Stockmann has suffered, yet he remains unrelenting in his pursuit of the truth, even though it has cost him his job, his inheritance, and his social position.

The symbolism in An Enemy of the People contains many of the same elements of Ibsen’s previous work, Ghosts. Again, he addresses the question of morality. Once again, he does not preach to us but he helps us to see his point of view. In this play, it is difficult to decide whose morality Ibsen agrees with. I hypothesize that Ibsen did not portray any of the characters to match his thoughts, but supplied the character flaws to help us reach his conclusion. I feel that Ibsen tells us to pursue truth and justice but not to the extent of Dr. Stockmann. Ibsen shows the actions of people when faced with difficult situations. He asks each of us, what would you do? This play also acts as a warning, that truth and justice are hard to uphold. Simply listen to one of Dr. Stockmann’s most famous lines, “Dr. Stockmann. A Man should never put on his best trousers when he goes out to battle for freedom and truth” (200).

A contrary position holds, that An Enemy of the People is a reaction to the very negative way that critics received the play Ghosts. Evidence for this lies in the speed with which he published his work, and the insults he throws at the hypocritical liberal press. He insults them, because they were the ones that called themselves enlightened, and the first to denounce his work in Ghosts (Gassner 129). Supporters of this theory often quote these lines.

Dr. Stockmann. I will impart to you a discovery of a far wider scope than the trifling matter that our water supply is poisoned and our medicinal Baths are standing on pestiferous soil. …I have already told you that what I want to speak about is the great discovery I have made lately-the discovery that all the sources of our moral life are poisoned and that the whole fabric of our civic community is founded on the pestiferous soil of falsehood (187).

However if this were the case, Ibsen would be agreeing with the character of Dr. Stockmann, into whom he builds many character flaws which cannot be overlooked, flaws such as cocky early assumptions. Several critics have pointed out that the character of Dr. Stockmann does match very closely with Ibsen, in that they are both “alienated moralists” (Roshwald 232).

Scholars call The Wild Duck, published in 1884, a transitional work moving out of the second stage, and into the third stage of Ibsen’s writing. The third stage includes what Bryfonski calls “symbolic psychological insight, infused with compassion” (217). Of the three plays discussed in this paper, The Wild Duck is the most elegantly written. It has the most subtle, and at the same time, the most influential message. Many consider The Wild Duck, another five-act play, Ibsen’s most interesting work (Gassner 218).

The plot of The Wild Duck follows the story of the Ekdal household. The Ekdals are impoverished, but live a relatively happy life. However, Mrs. Ekdal, Gina, keeps a secret from her husband, Hjalmar. Her daughter, Hedvig, might not actually be his as well. The tension starts when Hjalmar’s old friend Gregers, returns after fifteen years from the Hødal works. Gregers snoops around a little too much and discovers Gina’s secret. He decides to make it his mission in life to set the Ekdal family on new foundations of truth, and honesty. He however fails to see the short sightedness and ignorance of Hjalmar. Because of this, he manages only to upset Hjalmar so greatly that he decides to leave both his wife and her child. He, Gregers, fears that he has done wrong, so he convinces Hedvig to sacrifice what means most to her in life, the wild duck, for the sake of her father. This goes almost according to plan, but when Hedvig goes to shoot the wild duck, she shoots herself.

Almost every interpretation of The Wild Duck makes Gregers out to be a neurotic and meddling busybody, while simultaneously making Dr. Relling into the voice of Ibsen especially in these lines.

Gregers. And what treatment are you using for Hjalmar?

Relling. My usual one. I am trying to keep up the make-believe of life in him

Gregers. The make-believe? I don’t think I heard you aright?

Relling. Yes I said make-believe. That is the stimulating principle of life, you know (293).

However, according to Charles Hallett, Gregers takes the role of the tragic hero who simply tries to make his friend’s life better. Hallett points out that Gregers always claims to be acting in the best interest of his friend, even defending Hjalmar from the vile attacks of the elder Werle.

Gregers. I can set Hjalmar free from the lies that are holding him down,

Werle. Do you imagine you will do any good by that?

Gregers. I am confident of it.

Werle. Do you really think Hjalmar Ekdal is the sort of man to thank you for such a service?

Gregers. Certainly (269).

So according to Hallett, Gregers’ tragic flaw is his misjudgment of his friend’s character (Hallett 182). Gregers did what he thought was right, but he was unsuccessful due to a misjudgment of his friend’s character. This fits with the thesis that I present, the presentation of unconventional morals that make you question your own morality. Whether Ibsen believes these morals is irrelevant, he simply puts forth a series of causes and effects, and lets us judge for ourselves. You could just as easily feel that Relling represents the right viewpoint, and be equally correct. Ibsen was not trying to give us our morals; he tries to make us think.

Georg Brandes has made a connection between the plays presented here. According to him, Ibsen wrote the play Ghosts, and the public was angry. This annoys Ibsen so he vents by writing the play An Enemy of the People. However, after a little while, Ibsen wonders if it is right to preach the truth so he writes The Wild Duck (155). Many critics agree on the interpretation of The Wild Duck as an inner battle of Ibsen, with Dr. Relling representing Ibsen’s current views yelling at Gregers, who represents Ibsen’s previous views (Poupard 153). This view substantiates the connection made by Mr. Brandes.

Ibsen’s writing is just as hard hitting today as it was in his time. He finds a way to pick topics in morality that are ever living, and repeat themselves unto eternity. Every critical essay on Ibsen holds a different view on what Ibsen was trying to tell us. This makes sense, because I think Ibsen’s intention was to make us think.