Pathway to Japanese Literature
Discover Japan's stories—across time, across language.
'A Doll's House' CommentaryAuthor:Shimamura Hogetsu← Back
I
Henrik Ibsen, author of *A Doll's House*, was born on March 20, 1828, in the small Norwegian town of Skien, and died on May 23, 1906, at seventy-nine years of age in the capital of his homeland, Kristiania.
From age thirty-seven to sixty-three—the prime twenty-seven years of his life—he lived a wandering existence in Germany, Italy, and other lands, finding no fulfillment in his homeland, and during that time created over ten plays from *Brand* through *Hedda Gabler*.
His bibliography includes:
*Catiline* (Catilina—1850)
*The Warrior's Tomb* (Kjaempehöjen=The Warrior's Tomb—1851)
*Norma or a Politician’s Love* (Norma eller en Politikers Kjaerlighed=Norma or a Politician’s Love—1851)
*St. John’s Night* (Sancthansnatten=St. John’s Night—1853)
*Lady Inger of Oestraat* (Fru Inger til Oestraat=Lady Inger of Oestraat—1857)
*The Feast at Solhaug* (Gildet paa Solhaug=The Feast at Solhaug—1857)
*Olaf Liljekrans* (Olaf Liljekrans—1857)
*The Vikings at Helgeland* (Haermaedene paa Helgeland=The Vikings at Helgeland—1858)
*Love's Comedy* (Kjaerlighedens Komedie=Love's Comedy—1862)
*The Pretenders* (Kongsemnerne—The Pretenders—1894)
*Brand* (Brand—1866)
*Peer Gynt* (Peer Gynt—1867)
*The League of Youth* (De Unges Forbund=The League of Youth—1869)
*Emperor and Galilean* (Kejser og Galiloeer=Emperor and Galilean—1873)
*The Pillars of Society* (Samfundets Stötter=The Pillars of Society—1977)
*A Doll's House* (Et Dukkehjem=A Doll's House—1879)
*Ghosts* (Gengangere=Ghosts—1881)
*An Enemy of the People* (En Folkefiende=An Enemy of the People—1882)
*The Wild Duck* (Vildanden=The Wild Duck—1884)
*Rosmersholm* (Rosmersholm—1886)
*The Lady from the Sea* (Fruen fra Havet=The Lady from the Sea—1888)
*Hedda Gabler* (Hedda Gabler—1890)
*The Master Builder* (Bygmester Solness=The Master Builder—1882)
*Little Eyolf* (Lille Eyolf=Little Eyolf—1894)
*John Gabriel Borkman* (John Gabriel Borkman–1897)
*When We Dead Awaken* (Nar Vi Dode Vagner=When We Dead Awaken–1899)
*Poems* (Digte=Poems–1870)
*Ibsen’s Collected Poems*
*Ibsen’s Letters*
*Ibsen's Speeches and New Letters*
*Ibsen’s Drafts*
Among these works, it was especially in his plays depicting contemporary society that Ibsen became both the father and sovereign of modern drama.
II
When one spoke of *A Doll's House*, anyone immediately thought of women's issues.
Ibsen’s social dramas were largely problem plays, and *A Doll’s House* was said to be a drama that took women’s issues as its subject matter.
And debates over whether turning issues into art was good or bad accompanied this.
However, in short, this debate was unnecessary.
There was no reason why all plays had to be problem plays, nor was there any reason why a single play must not be a problem play.
The purpose of drama as art lies in impelling our very lives.
As long as that existed, it mattered not whether the methods and materials involved social issues.
In *A Doll’s House*, women’s issues were employed as subject matter.
It contained such issues as women's liberation, women's independence, women's self-awareness, marriage between men and women as equal individuals, and marriage founded on romantic love.
Therefore, it could not be denied that this play stimulated the world far beyond mere artistic power.
In his *Ibsen: Edmund Gosse*, Mr. Edmund Gosse stated,
*A Doll’s House* was Ibsen’s first unqualified success. Not only was it the first work to spark widespread public debate, but in its structure and method of depiction, it far surpassed his earlier works by demonstrating his unyielding new ideal as a realist writer. Arthur Symons’s remark that “*A Doll’s House* was the first work in which Ibsen discarded the wires controlling his theatrical puppets” struck true. Taking it further, it could also be called the first modern drama to discard such wires. Of course, its method of depiction could not yet be called perfect like his later works. The distance over which events converged was alarmingly short, and while the opening acts were skillfully crafted to engage audiences, they remained considerably removed from real life’s inevitability. Yet in the astonishing final act—when Nora prepared to leave and emerged from the bedroom, startling both Helmer and the audience, and when the tormented couple sat around the table confronting each other face-to-face—it made people feel for the first time that something new had been born in the theatrical world. Simultaneously, so-called “well-made plays” abruptly died out as if following Queen Anne’s demise. The sheer intensity with which life’s force manifested itself in such tragic terms was nothing short of astonishing in this final act. For the first time, old auspicious endings were wholly abandoned, and life’s contradictions emerged without mercy. It remains rare for *A Doll’s House* to have been recognized so suddenly as an extraordinary drama. Nora’s “declaration of independence” resounded throughout Scandinavia. Night after night, people left theaters pale with excitement, arguing, quarreling, and confronting one another.
This statement allows us to imagine how fiercely the play had stimulated societal issues when first performed in Ibsen’s homeland.
Not only in Scandinavia but across all European nations, this play stood as one of the most potent works to galvanize modern women’s issues.
As a problem play, its efficacy could scarcely be improved upon.
However, if that were all there was, it would lack art's distinctive privilege.
Without something radiating from the depths of those issues or ideas, it would become indistinguishable from a single inflammatory speech producing similar effects.
Artistic power must spring from more fundamental origins.
It was precisely this foundation that allowed a single work like *A Doll’s House* to wield such potent force.
What radiates from art's core is life's luminescence and life's fervor.
Art constitutes life's very ebullition.
The boiling of life imparted a tremor to the individual’s entire being, and there arose a profound awakening of thought and emotion.
One experienced a state of mind so profound that one could hardly tell whether it was thought or emotion.
If one were to explain this hypothetically, it would be the vexing sentiment of “How should one live life?”
It was an agonizing state of mind akin to asking, “How should I live my life?”
Within this state of mind lay not social issues, but questions of human existence.
The philosophy of life was suggested.
All modern art was, in this sense, both ideological art and problem art.
In this sense first and foremost, *A Doll’s House* had to be a problem play.
In a speech Ibsen gave at the Norwegian Women’s Rights League celebration in Christiania on May 26, 1898,
“I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League.”
“There is not a single work among my writings that I consciously wrote with the purpose of spreading a message.”
“I am more of a poet and less of a social philosopher than the world generally tends to believe.”
“I am grateful for your toast, but I must decline the honor of being credited as someone who actively worked for the women’s rights movement.”
“I have not even actually sufficiently clarified what the women’s rights movement fundamentally is.”
“I viewed this broadly as a human problem.”
“If you read my writings with care, I think you will understand this meaning.”
“Of course, the resolution of women’s issues, like that of all other problems, is desirable—but that is not the entire purpose.”
“My work was ‘the depiction of human beings.’”
“Of course, if such depictions are perceived as rationally true, readers will insert their own emotions and feelings into the poet’s work, making it seem as though all of them belonged to the poet—but that is a mistake.”
“All readers, in accordance with their own individual personalities, end up remaking the work into something very beautiful and splendid.”
“Not only the author but also the readers are poets; they are the writer’s assistants, and at times even more poetic than the poets themselves.”
(omitted).”
When he said this, it could be seen that through his phrase “the depiction of human beings,” he was articulating a meaning that suggested questions of human existence. However, it was equally evident that employing women’s issues precisely as women’s issues for subject matter had formed part of Ibsen’s plan from the very outset. In July 1879—the year this play was completed—the letter dispatched from Rome to Mr. Gosse read:
“I have been staying in this place with my family since last September, and most of my time has been consumed by reworking a new play. It will soon be finished and should be published in October. It is a serious play addressing modern domestic conditions—particularly problems entangled with marriage—a genuine domestic drama.”
he writes.
It could be understood as penetrating through such marriage issues, domestic issues, and women’s issues while adding a layer of more profound sentiment regarding life’s existential questions.
This type of thought or problem remains in art as adhesiveness and authenticity.
Ordinary entertainment-oriented art lacks this adhesiveness and authenticity.
Between entertainment-oriented art—comprising art of aesthetic interest, play of emotions, and mechanisms for emotional release—and true art, there exists an insurmountable difference in kind.
III
The concept forming the backbone of *A Doll’s House* had already manifested a decade earlier—in 1869—within his work *The League of Youth*.
Biographer Mr. Jäger traces this lineage even further back to Ibsen’s preceding work *Peer Gynt*, positing that Helmer’s selfish disposition toward Nora parallels Peer Gynt’s emotional stance toward Anitra’s affections (Henrik Ibsen: Jaeger). Yet from the vantage point of Nora as the central figure, the nascent stirrings of women’s issues find no foothold here.
This genesis must instead be sought within *The League of Youth*.
Specifically, at the conclusion of its third act, where Zelma separates from her husband Erik and his father to depart their household,
“Goodness! I was treated so cruelly by you all!”
“All of you—cowards!”
“I’ve always only received—never once have I given.”
“I was like a mere recipient blended among you all.”
“Not once did you come to me and ask for sacrifices.”
“I became someone incapable of doing anything.”
“I grew sick of all of you!”
“I came to hate all of you!”
This was equivalent to Nora’s declaration: “Did you never understand even a shred of who I truly am? I have been treated most unjustly—first by my father, then by you.” Similarly, Zelma had cried out:
“How desperately I wanted to share even a drop of your burdens and anxieties! Yet when I begged for this, you simply laughed me off. You swaddled me like a doll and played with me as one does a child. Ah, how I raged to partake in your struggles! How I must have strained with all my being to achieve something grand, towering, and mighty in this world! (omitted)”
This is when Nora declares, “I became your doll wife.”
“It was exactly the same as when I was a doll child in my father’s house.”
“Then the children, in turn, became my dolls.”
“And just as I was happy when I played with the children, you must have found it amusing to play with me”—these lines can be seen as the precursor that formed the root of *A Doll’s House* as a complete work.
It is said that after reading these lines from *The League of Youth*, Mr. Brandes (George Brandes) encouraged Ibsen, suggesting that expanding them could yield another splendid masterpiece.
However, regarding the direct motivation that stimulated this work, Mr. Gosse’s account stated as follows.
“According to general belief, in April 1879, Ibsen was told the story of an incident that had occurred in a Danish court involving a young married woman from a small town in Zealand, and this drew his mind to planning a new play.”
It was likely that both of these factors were present.
IV
Then there was another work: a one-act play titled *La Révolte* (Rebellion), created in 1870 by the French writer Villiers de L'Isle-Adam.
It was a play featuring only the couple Felix and Elisabeth, in which Elisabeth—unable to endure her husband’s calculating disposition—ultimately abandoned their home, only to return shortly thereafter, resulting in an ending of happy resolution.
Within it lay the following line from Elisabeth.
“You don’t understand—I want to live, you know.”
“Don’t you think it’s only natural that anyone would want to enjoy life?”
“I feel suffocated here—I want something more substantial, I want to breathe the vast air of the heavens!”
“Can you take your banknotes to the grave?”
“How long do you think we can live?”
(Pauses pensively) “Live?—Do I even wish to live? Lover!”
“You say that, don’t you?”
“How pitiful—you’re mistaken!”
“I have no lover, nor will I ever have one after this.”
“I had come to love my husband—you see—and what I sought from him was, if only a fleeting moment, human sympathy.”
“It has now vanished completely, and any pride in love has frozen solid within my veins.”
“While I, oblivious and fretting, offered what I thought would last forever with near-delirious joy—you snatched it away like trash. (omitted)”
And what became of her fulfilling the duties expected of her? Her youth was destroyed, her beauty faded, and her precious evenings were merely soiled by account books.
She had already lost the strength to remain there and discharge those obligations.
Now she must enjoy some measure of freedom; now she must behold broad horizons.
For this reason, she finally left her husband and child behind.
Felix, abandoned in her wake, collapsed in despair.
However, in the next scene, Elisabeth returned at dawn.
“It was too late!—I had already lost my strength.”
“When I peered into the dark night through the carriage window—no matter how much I desired freedom—my heart sank as a cold sense of being a wanderer seeped into my very being.”
“A feeling as though bound by leaden chains… Not knowing where to go—trembling in the cold morning air—I returned.”
“See? I’m not such a beast after all,” Felix said, kissing his wife’s hand.
Elisabeth looked down at it fixedly and said sadly, “Poor thing!”—this marks the end.
It was a fact that there were certain similarities even in the circumstances surrounding the wife leaving home and the husband’s subsequent state to those of Nora and Helmer in *A Doll’s House*. However, there was no way to know whether Ibsen had read *La Révolte* when writing *A Doll’s House*, and thus one could not claim that *A Doll’s House* evolved from *La Révolte* or was modeled after it. In the absence of evidence, it was most appropriate to regard them as unrelated—mere coincidences. One could not think of Ibsen as someone who would imitate the superficial form of another’s work that had appeared merely a decade prior, and the conceptual foundation had already clearly shown its beginnings in his own *The League of Youth*, which predated *La Révolte*. Moreover, *La Révolte* ultimately could not match *A Doll’s House* in dramatic value. The dialogue, with its smooth yet verbose stench, felt dated; the exaggerated emotions and crude elements also felt antiquated. It still could not escape the feeling of being a pre-Ibsen work. While it went without saying that the endings of the two plays differed entirely, the conclusion of *La Révolte* had the air of providing an answer when compared to *A Doll’s House*, which left behind the question of what would become of Nora after she departed her home. However, this was not because Elisabeth had returned enlightened and satisfied; rather, she had sadly returned having lost the strength to resolve things herself, and thus in truth, it did not provide an answer but left the problem as it stood.
V
In stark contrast to this, the famous adapted version of *A Doll’s House*—where Ibsen had been compelled by popular taste to alter the ending—resolved everything through parental love, thereby smothering the problem before it could even be acknowledged as such.
If we now translate and present this revised ending, the text from line 16 on page 126 of this book changes as follows.
Nora: "The relationship between us must become a true marriage."
“Goodbye!”
Helmer: “It can’t be helped—go!”
(Grabbing Nora’s hand) “But before that, you must bid farewell to the children!”
Nora: “Let go of me!”
“I won’t see the children!”
“It’s too painful to bear!”
Helmer (pushing Nora toward the door on the left): “You must see them!”
(opens the door and says quietly): “Look there—the children are sound asleep, knowing nothing.”
“When they wake tomorrow and seek their mother’s presence, by then—motherless children.”
Nora (trembling): “Motherless... children!”
Helmer: “Exactly—you were once the same.”
Nora: “Motherless children!”
(Unable to bear it, drops her travel bag) “Ah—I can’t forgive myself, but I can’t abandon them like this and leave!” (sinks halfway to the floor before the door)
Helmer (rejoicing, in a gentle voice): “Nora!”
(Curtain)
It goes without saying that such adaptations destroy the spirit of the original text and render it shallow.
Therefore, regarding this adaptation that Ibsen was compelled to write, he sent the following letter to Heinrich Laube, a theater director in Vienna.
February 18, 1880, in Munich
Dear Sir—I am delighted to hear that my recent work *A Doll’s House* is to be performed at the Vienna City Theater under your esteemed direction.
"It is my understanding that you hold the opinion that this play, by virtue of its ending being as it is, does not properly conform to the so-called 'laws of drama.' However, do you truly place such great value upon these so-called laws?"
In my view, the laws of drama can be altered in any manner; they should be made to conform to literary facts, but conversely, I believe that literature should not be made to conform to laws.
The fact that this play, with its current ending, has achieved nearly unprecedented success in Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen serves as clear evidence of this principle.
The revised ending was not created because I deemed it necessary, but solely at the request of a theater director in Northern Germany and an actress who portrayed Nora in touring productions in that region.
I hereby humbly send you a copy of part of the aforementioned revised version.
After reviewing it, I earnestly request your understanding that using such a thing would merely serve to needlessly weaken the effect of this work—it is my utmost hope.
I humbly believe without doubt that you will faithfully stage this play in its original form.
Respectfully
Regarding the circumstances that had compelled such an adaptation, there existed the following letter submitted to Denmark's *Nationaltidende*.
February 17, 1880, in Munich
“To the Editor—According to certain correspondence from Flensburg that I had the honor of reading in your esteemed newspaper No. 1360, *A Doll’s House* (titled *Nora* in Germany) has been performed in that region with alterations to its ending, and it is claimed that these alterations were clearly executed at my instruction.”
This concluding part holds no basis in fact.
Shortly after the publication of *Nora*, I received written communication from Mr. Wilhelm Lange of Berlin—who served as both its translator and my administrative supervisor for theaters in Northern Germany—stating that there was a risk of an alternative version with an altered ending being published, and that consequently, many theaters in Northern Germany would likely choose to stage that version.
In order to prevent such occurrences, I—in anticipation of absolutely unavoidable circumstances—humbly dispatched the altered version of the concluding scene to Mr. Lange.
That is to say, in this scene, Nora does not leave the house but is forcibly dragged by Helmer before the children's room, exchanges terse words, collapses at the doorway, and the curtain descends.
This alteration—as I formally notified even the translator—stands cursed by me as a "barbaric mutilation" inflicted upon this play.
The employment of this revised scene constitutes a complete contravention of my will.
I maintain conviction that most German theaters ought not employ this version.
As long as no literary agreements exist between Germany and Scandinavia, we Scandinavian writers cannot receive the protection of this country’s laws, and German writers in Scandinavia are likewise unable to do so.
Consequently, in Germany, our plays are left to the mercy of translators, theater managers, stage directors, and small theater actors.
When my works face such peril, I, guided by experience, commit the mutilation myself to avoid having them handled and adapted by even more careless and immature hands.
Respectfully
At the time in Germany, such alterations occurred because Nora leaving home faced widespread condemnation.
VI
The public criticism of the ending of *A Doll’s House* largely consisted of statements such as, “No matter how much it may be for her own education, a wife has no right to abandon her husband and leave home—especially to abandon her children and leave. What will become of Nora after she leaves?”
Thus, beginning with Ibsen’s own aforementioned mutilation, various works sprouted from *A Doll’s House* as their seed to satisfy this popular demand among the public.
These are works of the kind that might be termed “later A Doll’s Houses.”
The first of these appeared in the 1890 issue of *English Illustrated Magazine* as Walter Besant’s *The Doll’s House—and After*; according to this work, Nora’s daughter and Krogstad’s son grow up and become engaged to marry.
Helmer becomes a drunkard after Nora leaves.
Krogstad disapproves of his son’s marriage and, using a forged document written by Nora’s daughter’s brother, blackmails the daughter, who then throws herself into water.
Furthermore, Mrs. Edna Dow Cheney—an American suffragist writer—published a pamphlet slightly later titled *Nora’s Returne;asequel to The Doll’s House of Henrik Ibsen*.
In this version, after leaving home, Nora was trained as a nurse. When a cholera outbreak occurred and Helmer contracted the disease, she concealed her identity to be hired back into her former household and saved his life.
When he had nearly recovered from his illness, Helmer recognized Nora in nurse attire, and here they happily reconciled and returned to being husband and wife as before—such was the plot described.
Among other parodies that used *A Doll’s House* as comedic material, the most famous was *Mr. Punch’s Pocket Ibsen* (F. Anstey), created in 1893, which included adaptations of *Rosmersholm*, *Hedda Gabler*, *The Wild Duck*, *The Master Builder*, and others in addition to *A Doll’s House*.
VII
While these works were ultimately not worthy of serious discussion, what might be considered Ibsen’s artistic rebuttal to the criticism that “a wife has no right to abandon her husband and children” was *Ghosts*, which followed *A Doll’s House*.
In *Ghosts*, Mrs. Alving attempted to abandon her dissolute husband and child and leave home but changed her mind and stayed, sacrificing herself to conceal the family’s crimes from both her child and society.
However, in the end, Oswald—the beloved son—suffered the consequences of his father’s dissolute ways and met a cruel death, bringing the entire family to a tragic fate.
Even if Nora had reversed her decision and stayed home at that time, that would by no means have been a reason for happiness—it was this meaning that the work sought to convey.
Moreover, in cases where Nora and Helmer did not marry as mutually self-aware individuals, what should ultimately be done? The work said to be Ibsen’s answer to this problem was *The Lady from the Sea*. In this play, Ellida similarly came to realize the injustice of her marriage, sought to break free from it, and found herself drawn toward a mysterious lover from the sea. Reluctantly, her husband Wangel granted her freedom and told Ellida to take full responsibility and decide her own course of action. When she was granted her own freedom and made to bear responsibility, she realized for the first time that leaving her husband’s home was not her true desire, and as an independent individual, she vowed love anew to her husband and the children from his previous marriage. First became an independent and free individual; then—if true love could be established upon that foundation—true marriage could also be formed: this was the interpretation.
As previously stated, it was not Ibsen’s true intention for these works to be approached as if reading academic treatises on women’s self-awareness, liberation, or marriage issues. Yet at the same time, it remained evident that the human radiance—what one might call the vital heat—emanating from their depths bore an inseparable relationship to these very issues.
From this perspective, the three works—*A Doll’s House*, *Ghosts*, and *The Lady from the Sea*—could be seen as interconnected to form a unified philosophy.
VIII
After Ibsen’s death in 1909, his draft manuscripts were made public.
Among them was *A Doll’s House*.
A comparison between what is believed to be the final draft and the completed *A Doll’s House* revealed numerous points of interest.
That draft, titled *Modern Tragedy Draft* and dated October 19, 1878, in Rome, first set down the following ideas.
There are two types of spiritual laws—two kinds of conscience: one for men, and another entirely different for women.
Men and women do not understand each other; in practical life, women are judged by men’s laws as though they were not women but men.
The wife in this play ended without possessing any concept of what was right or wrong.
Natural feelings on one side and faith in authority on the other plunged her into utter confusion regarding her course.
In today’s society, women could not be women; today’s society was entirely a male society: men created the laws, and the judicial system judged women’s actions from a male perspective.
She forged a signature and took pride in it.
She did it out of love for her husband and to save his life.
However, this husband, driven by an ordinary sense of honor, took the same position as the law and approached this issue from a male perspective.
Inner conflict.
Oppressed and dazzled by her belief in authority, she lost confidence in her moral right and ability to raise her children.
Anguish.
In modern society, mothers fulfilled their duty to propagate the species like certain insects, only to depart and die.
Love of life, love of family, love for husband, children, and kin.
There lay the collapse of feminine thought.
The sudden return of worry and terror.
She had to endure all of that alone.
A cataclysm approached inevitably and unavoidably.
Despair, anguish, and destruction.
It appears that from these fundamental ideas alone, he gradually imparted concrete form.
Following these ideas, he lists the characters:
Stenborg – Secretary
Nora – His wife
Miss Lind (Mrs.) (Widow)
Krogstad – Lawyer
Karen – Nursemaid of the Stenborg household
One maid – Stenborg household
One manservant – Stenborg household
The Stenborg household’s three children
Hank – Doctor
From this, we see that the name Helmer for the protagonist had not yet appeared in this draft plan.
On the contrary, the consul’s name had become the protagonist’s name.
In the synopsis and draft, the name changes to Helmer starting from the third act.
Mrs. Linden was still named Lind in this draft plan, with her status as a wife, widow, or daughter remaining undecided.
Dr. Rank appeared as Dr. Hank initially before changing to Rank from Act II onward.
Following these character listings came a three-act synopsis preceding the actual draft text itself—according to this outline, Dr. Rank did not appear until Act II despite later becoming pivotal.
In contrast,the draft already featured him from Act I.
Nora’s consumption of macaroons was absent from both synopsis and draft.
Consequently,the first act’s most buoyant scene—where Nora offers macaroons to Mrs.Linde and Dr.Rank while teasingly placing one in his mouth with “Dr.Rank,won’t you have a macaroon?”—lacked entirely lines like “You fool?...”
Phrases such as “how wonderful it would feel to say...” remained completely missing from this early version.
IX
Furthermore, the tarantella dance—which forms the vivid centerpiece of *A Doll’s House* (it is said to derive its name from resembling the convulsive movements of those stung by the Italian poisonous spider *tarantula*)—did not appear at all in either the synopsis or the draft.
It first appeared in the completed version.
Therefore, the second act in the draft lacked nearly all the compelling scenes found in the completed version.
In the ending, where Nora frantically danced the tarantella to stop Helmer, the draft instead had her play the piano and sing or dance to Anitra’s song from *Peer Gynt*; thus, subtle moments—such as Nora showing Rank her dance costume or striking him with a silk stocking during their dialogue—could not exist.
Not only that, but from around the time when Rank bared his heart to Nora, she would say, “It was wrong of you to say that to me.”
“Was there any need for you to say that?”—this most richly nuanced episode in the play as an interlude remained almost entirely undeveloped in the draft.
The third act did not differ significantly between the draft and the completed version. This was where Nora was made to advocate for women's self-awareness and liberation; as a problem play, it formed the structural core, and Ibsen was believed to have written it with an unshakable foundational plan from the very beginning. Nevertheless, traces of improvements made from draft to completed version could be seen in crucial areas throughout. With neither Consul Stenborg's masquerade ball nor a tarantella dance present, Nora wore only her evening dress as the couple attended their children's party. It was precisely when Nora emerged within that plain household adorned in her vibrant dancer's attire that the contrast with the later cataclysmic scene gained its compelling nuance—yet this concept had not yet been conceived in the draft. Moreover, scenes such as Rank declaring "At the next masquerade, I intend to become invisible" remained undeveloped there.
Finally, regarding the confrontation scene between Nora and Helmer toward the end—as previously mentioned—it remained largely identical between the draft and completed version. However, take for instance when Nora says, “Thank you for your permission,” enters another room, and declares, “I will remove my doll’s costume.” While this act of “removing the doll’s costume” resonates symbolically with the entire work’s meaning, in the draft she was instead made to utter something utterly meaningless: “I must calm myself down—just for a moment.”
When Helmer declares, “No man would sacrifice his honor for the sake of a loved one,” Nora’s retort—“Yet millions of women have sacrificed theirs”—is acclaimed as a cry of public indignation voiced on behalf of countless women throughout history who resigned themselves to sacrifice for men. In the draft, however, Helmer merely exclaims, “Oh, Nora, Nora!” to which Nora bluntly replies: “And what comes of it? No gratitude, no words of love—not a shred of thought to save me. You just scold me endlessly—even mock my father—cower at every little thing—then mercilessly berate those who’ve sacrificed everything and can’t act!” she declares in a confrontational tone.
Compared to the completed version’s language, the marked difference in dignity and depth goes without saying.
In this manner, *A Doll’s House*—progressively refined from concept to outline, from outline to draft, and then to its completed form today—emerged just over a year after the draft bearing the date October 1878, finally materializing as a published work for the first time on December 4, 1879, in Copenhagen.
X
*A Doll’s House* was first performed at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on December 21, 1879.
The actress who played Nora was Betty Hennings (Fru Betty Hennings), making her the world’s first performer of this famous role.
The actor who portrayed Helmer was Emil Poulsen (Herr Emil Poulsen).
In Sweden’s Stockholm, it was performed at the Dramaten Theatre on January 8, 1880, and in Norway’s Kristiania, it opened at the Kristiania Theatre on the 20th of the same month.
Outside Scandinavia, *A Doll’s House* was first performed in Flensburg, Germany, in February 1880, and in Munich at the Residenz Theatre on March 3 of that year.
For this Munich performance, Ibsen himself attended for the first time; while he received applause outside the curtain after Act II, fierce opposition reportedly erupted from the audience following Act III.
During this production’s rehearsals—which Ibsen attended nearly every day—he graciously thanked all actors post-performance, leading observers to believe he considered the direction flawless; however, he later told acquaintances this was not true.
He reportedly cited multiple dissatisfactions: some actors inadequately understood their roles; the room’s wallpaper color failed to evoke the intended mood; Nora’s hands lacked proper positioning.
Furthermore，within the same year，the play was performed in Hamburg，Dresden，Hanover，Berlin，and other German cities．There，Hedwig Niemann-Raabe（Mrs．Hedwig Niemann-Raabe），who portrayed Nora，became Germany’s most representative Nora actress，preceding Agnes Sorma（Miss Agnes Sorma）of Berlin’s *Deutsches Theater*．
In Vienna，it was first performed in September 1881．
In Russia，it was first performed in St．Petersburg in November 1881 by the renowned actress Madame Modjeska，and the following year in Warsaw，Poland．
In Budapest，Hungary，it premiered in 1889；in Amsterdam，Netherlands，it also premiered that same year；and in Brussels，Belgium，it premiered that year as well—however，this marked the first French-language performance，and the ending had been altered to a more auspicious conclusion．
In Paris，*A Doll’s House* was first performed much later on April 20，1894，at the *Théâtre des Nouveautés*，with actress Madame Réjane as Nora．
In Italy，before actress Eleonora Duse came to perform it，the play was first staged in Turin in 1889，and in Serbia as well，it premiered in Belgrade that same year．
In England, the first performance of an adaptation of *A Doll’s House* took place at London’s Prince’s Theatre on March 3, 1884. This was a three-act play titled *Breaking a Butterfly*, a collaboration between the renowned comedy writer Jones and the story writer Herman (*Breaking a Butterfly* by Henry A. Jones and H. Herman, founded on Ibsen's "Norah"). That it was a trivial piece goes without saying. The next occurred in March 1885, when an amateur theater club in London staged the first private performance adhering to the original text. However, this production was reportedly neither particularly earnest nor noteworthy. The first true performance of *A Doll’s House* in England came much later in 1889, following the completion of William Archer’s translation.
In America, earlier than in Britain, in December 1883, the actress Modjeska first performed Nora under the title *Thora* in Louisville, Kentucky.
It is said that the outcome was crafted to conclude auspiciously, but whether it was based on what had been used in Germany or incorporated separate adaptations remains unclear.
The first English translation of *A Doll's House* was made in 1880, the year following the original's publication, by a Copenhagen resident named T. Weber under the title *Nora*. However, this translation was reportedly extremely poor due to the translator's inadequate command of English. The next translation appeared in 1882 by an Englishwoman named Miss H.F. Lord, who similarly rendered it as *Nora*. This edition included a preface framing Ibsen as an audacious feminist theorist. Subsequently came the version Modjeska used for her American production—a translation purportedly created through collaboration between the actress's husband, secretary, and others.
Mr. Archer’s definitive translation was published in 1889, coinciding with the commemorative edition of the script performed by actress Achurch’s troupe at London’s Novelty Theatre from June 7th to 29th that same year.
At this time, it was first titled in English as *Et Dukkehjem*—that is, *A Doll’s House*.
However, Mr. Arne Kildal, editor of *Ibsen’s Speeches and New Letters Collection*, argued that to better honor the original title, it should have been rendered *Et Dōru Hōmu* (A Doll Home)—or *Ningyō Katei* (Doll Household).
In any case, this translation established the authoritative version of *A Doll’s House* while marking Britain’s first encounter with productions that came close to presenting Ibsen’s plays in their complete form.
The cast for this production was as follows.
Helmer………………Herbert Waring
Nora……………………Janet Achurch (Miss Janet Achurch)
Rank…………………Charles Charington
Krogstad………………Royce Carlton
Mrs. Linden…………Gertrude Warden
It is said that with this play’s premiere, Ibsen truly established his literary reputation in England for the first time.
Achurch was a renowned actress even when performing Shakespearean plays.
The troupe, having concluded this production, immediately set sail for Australia and went on to perform *A Doll’s House* across Australia, New Zealand, India, and Egypt.
In this sequence, within about a decade after its publication, *A Doll’s House* spread throughout Europe and America and has endured to this day.
In Japan, Takayasu Gekkō first translated it in Meiji 34 (1901).
The translation now being made public here is based on the version once published in the January 1910 issue of Waseda Bungaku, with minor corrections applied.
This translation was based on Mr. Archer’s English translation and Mr. Lange’s German translation.
From September 22 to 24, 1911, the Literary Arts Association performed this script in their inaugural private performance, which also commemorated the opening of their institute’s stage. However, on this occasion—with only Acts I and III performed and the middle act omitted—the production could not avoid leaving an incomplete impression as a full play. Nevertheless, in our country it achieved success nearly unprecedented in new theater history. Subsequently, from November 28 of the same year for one week, the association staged all three acts of *A Doll’s House* at the Imperial Theatre as their second public performance.
This marked not only the first performance of *A Doll’s House* in our country but also the inaugural serious modern drama to achieve success by abandoning the use of traditional male actors specializing in female roles and instead centering on actresses.
The roles at that time were as follows:
Helmer: Doi Yōmoto
Krogstad: Tōgi Toshiharu
Rank: Mori Eijirō
Servant: Nishihara Katsuhiko
Child: Kiyoko
Teiko
Ellen: Yokogawa Tadaharu
Anna: Sasaki Tsumoru
Mrs. Linden: Hirota Hamako
Nora: Matsui Sumako
The same troupe staged *A Doll’s House* for one week beginning March 14, 1912 (Meiji 45) at Osaka’s Naka-za Theater, and this too proved successful.
The history of *A Doll’s House* follows roughly the course outlined above.
March 1913 (Taishō 2)
Mr. Hōgetsu
Henrik Ibsen, author of *A Doll's House*, was born on March 20, 1828, in the small Norwegian town of Skien, and died on May 23, 1906, at seventy-nine years of age in the capital of his homeland, Kristiania.
From age thirty-seven to sixty-three—the prime twenty-seven years of his life—he lived a wandering existence in Germany, Italy, and other lands, finding no fulfillment in his homeland, and during that time created over ten plays from *Brand* through *Hedda Gabler*.
His bibliography includes:
*Catiline* (Catilina—1850)
*The Warrior's Tomb* (Kjaempehöjen=The Warrior's Tomb—1851)
*Norma or a Politician’s Love* (Norma eller en Politikers Kjaerlighed=Norma or a Politician’s Love—1851)
*St. John’s Night* (Sancthansnatten=St. John’s Night—1853)
*Lady Inger of Oestraat* (Fru Inger til Oestraat=Lady Inger of Oestraat—1857)
*The Feast at Solhaug* (Gildet paa Solhaug=The Feast at Solhaug—1857)
*Olaf Liljekrans* (Olaf Liljekrans—1857)
*The Vikings at Helgeland* (Haermaedene paa Helgeland=The Vikings at Helgeland—1858)
*Love's Comedy* (Kjaerlighedens Komedie=Love's Comedy—1862)
*The Pretenders* (Kongsemnerne—The Pretenders—1894)
*Brand* (Brand—1866)
*Peer Gynt* (Peer Gynt—1867)
*The League of Youth* (De Unges Forbund=The League of Youth—1869)
*Emperor and Galilean* (Kejser og Galiloeer=Emperor and Galilean—1873)
*The Pillars of Society* (Samfundets Stötter=The Pillars of Society—1977)
*A Doll's House* (Et Dukkehjem=A Doll's House—1879)
*Ghosts* (Gengangere=Ghosts—1881)
*An Enemy of the People* (En Folkefiende=An Enemy of the People—1882)
*The Wild Duck* (Vildanden=The Wild Duck—1884)
*Rosmersholm* (Rosmersholm—1886)
*The Lady from the Sea* (Fruen fra Havet=The Lady from the Sea—1888)
*Hedda Gabler* (Hedda Gabler—1890)
*The Master Builder* (Bygmester Solness=The Master Builder—1882)
*Little Eyolf* (Lille Eyolf=Little Eyolf—1894)
*John Gabriel Borkman* (John Gabriel Borkman–1897)
*When We Dead Awaken* (Nar Vi Dode Vagner=When We Dead Awaken–1899)
*Poems* (Digte=Poems–1870)
*Ibsen’s Collected Poems*
*Ibsen’s Letters*
*Ibsen's Speeches and New Letters*
*Ibsen’s Drafts*
Among these works, it was especially in his plays depicting contemporary society that Ibsen became both the father and sovereign of modern drama.
II
When one spoke of *A Doll's House*, anyone immediately thought of women's issues.
Ibsen’s social dramas were largely problem plays, and *A Doll’s House* was said to be a drama that took women’s issues as its subject matter.
And debates over whether turning issues into art was good or bad accompanied this.
However, in short, this debate was unnecessary.
There was no reason why all plays had to be problem plays, nor was there any reason why a single play must not be a problem play.
The purpose of drama as art lies in impelling our very lives.
As long as that existed, it mattered not whether the methods and materials involved social issues.
In *A Doll’s House*, women’s issues were employed as subject matter.
It contained such issues as women's liberation, women's independence, women's self-awareness, marriage between men and women as equal individuals, and marriage founded on romantic love.
Therefore, it could not be denied that this play stimulated the world far beyond mere artistic power.
In his *Ibsen: Edmund Gosse*, Mr. Edmund Gosse stated,
*A Doll’s House* was Ibsen’s first unqualified success. Not only was it the first work to spark widespread public debate, but in its structure and method of depiction, it far surpassed his earlier works by demonstrating his unyielding new ideal as a realist writer. Arthur Symons’s remark that “*A Doll’s House* was the first work in which Ibsen discarded the wires controlling his theatrical puppets” struck true. Taking it further, it could also be called the first modern drama to discard such wires. Of course, its method of depiction could not yet be called perfect like his later works. The distance over which events converged was alarmingly short, and while the opening acts were skillfully crafted to engage audiences, they remained considerably removed from real life’s inevitability. Yet in the astonishing final act—when Nora prepared to leave and emerged from the bedroom, startling both Helmer and the audience, and when the tormented couple sat around the table confronting each other face-to-face—it made people feel for the first time that something new had been born in the theatrical world. Simultaneously, so-called “well-made plays” abruptly died out as if following Queen Anne’s demise. The sheer intensity with which life’s force manifested itself in such tragic terms was nothing short of astonishing in this final act. For the first time, old auspicious endings were wholly abandoned, and life’s contradictions emerged without mercy. It remains rare for *A Doll’s House* to have been recognized so suddenly as an extraordinary drama. Nora’s “declaration of independence” resounded throughout Scandinavia. Night after night, people left theaters pale with excitement, arguing, quarreling, and confronting one another.
This statement allows us to imagine how fiercely the play had stimulated societal issues when first performed in Ibsen’s homeland.
Not only in Scandinavia but across all European nations, this play stood as one of the most potent works to galvanize modern women’s issues.
As a problem play, its efficacy could scarcely be improved upon.
However, if that were all there was, it would lack art's distinctive privilege.
Without something radiating from the depths of those issues or ideas, it would become indistinguishable from a single inflammatory speech producing similar effects.
Artistic power must spring from more fundamental origins.
It was precisely this foundation that allowed a single work like *A Doll’s House* to wield such potent force.
What radiates from art's core is life's luminescence and life's fervor.
Art constitutes life's very ebullition.
The boiling of life imparted a tremor to the individual’s entire being, and there arose a profound awakening of thought and emotion.
One experienced a state of mind so profound that one could hardly tell whether it was thought or emotion.
If one were to explain this hypothetically, it would be the vexing sentiment of “How should one live life?”
It was an agonizing state of mind akin to asking, “How should I live my life?”
Within this state of mind lay not social issues, but questions of human existence.
The philosophy of life was suggested.
All modern art was, in this sense, both ideological art and problem art.
In this sense first and foremost, *A Doll’s House* had to be a problem play.
In a speech Ibsen gave at the Norwegian Women’s Rights League celebration in Christiania on May 26, 1898,
“I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League.”
“There is not a single work among my writings that I consciously wrote with the purpose of spreading a message.”
“I am more of a poet and less of a social philosopher than the world generally tends to believe.”
“I am grateful for your toast, but I must decline the honor of being credited as someone who actively worked for the women’s rights movement.”
“I have not even actually sufficiently clarified what the women’s rights movement fundamentally is.”
“I viewed this broadly as a human problem.”
“If you read my writings with care, I think you will understand this meaning.”
“Of course, the resolution of women’s issues, like that of all other problems, is desirable—but that is not the entire purpose.”
“My work was ‘the depiction of human beings.’”
“Of course, if such depictions are perceived as rationally true, readers will insert their own emotions and feelings into the poet’s work, making it seem as though all of them belonged to the poet—but that is a mistake.”
“All readers, in accordance with their own individual personalities, end up remaking the work into something very beautiful and splendid.”
“Not only the author but also the readers are poets; they are the writer’s assistants, and at times even more poetic than the poets themselves.”
(omitted).”
When he said this, it could be seen that through his phrase “the depiction of human beings,” he was articulating a meaning that suggested questions of human existence. However, it was equally evident that employing women’s issues precisely as women’s issues for subject matter had formed part of Ibsen’s plan from the very outset. In July 1879—the year this play was completed—the letter dispatched from Rome to Mr. Gosse read:
“I have been staying in this place with my family since last September, and most of my time has been consumed by reworking a new play. It will soon be finished and should be published in October. It is a serious play addressing modern domestic conditions—particularly problems entangled with marriage—a genuine domestic drama.”
he writes.
It could be understood as penetrating through such marriage issues, domestic issues, and women’s issues while adding a layer of more profound sentiment regarding life’s existential questions.
This type of thought or problem remains in art as adhesiveness and authenticity.
Ordinary entertainment-oriented art lacks this adhesiveness and authenticity.
Between entertainment-oriented art—comprising art of aesthetic interest, play of emotions, and mechanisms for emotional release—and true art, there exists an insurmountable difference in kind.
III
The concept forming the backbone of *A Doll’s House* had already manifested a decade earlier—in 1869—within his work *The League of Youth*.
Biographer Mr. Jäger traces this lineage even further back to Ibsen’s preceding work *Peer Gynt*, positing that Helmer’s selfish disposition toward Nora parallels Peer Gynt’s emotional stance toward Anitra’s affections (Henrik Ibsen: Jaeger). Yet from the vantage point of Nora as the central figure, the nascent stirrings of women’s issues find no foothold here.
This genesis must instead be sought within *The League of Youth*.
Specifically, at the conclusion of its third act, where Zelma separates from her husband Erik and his father to depart their household,
“Goodness! I was treated so cruelly by you all!”
“All of you—cowards!”
“I’ve always only received—never once have I given.”
“I was like a mere recipient blended among you all.”
“Not once did you come to me and ask for sacrifices.”
“I became someone incapable of doing anything.”
“I grew sick of all of you!”
“I came to hate all of you!”
This was equivalent to Nora’s declaration: “Did you never understand even a shred of who I truly am? I have been treated most unjustly—first by my father, then by you.” Similarly, Zelma had cried out:
“How desperately I wanted to share even a drop of your burdens and anxieties! Yet when I begged for this, you simply laughed me off. You swaddled me like a doll and played with me as one does a child. Ah, how I raged to partake in your struggles! How I must have strained with all my being to achieve something grand, towering, and mighty in this world! (omitted)”
This is when Nora declares, “I became your doll wife.”
“It was exactly the same as when I was a doll child in my father’s house.”
“Then the children, in turn, became my dolls.”
“And just as I was happy when I played with the children, you must have found it amusing to play with me”—these lines can be seen as the precursor that formed the root of *A Doll’s House* as a complete work.
It is said that after reading these lines from *The League of Youth*, Mr. Brandes (George Brandes) encouraged Ibsen, suggesting that expanding them could yield another splendid masterpiece.
However, regarding the direct motivation that stimulated this work, Mr. Gosse’s account stated as follows.
“According to general belief, in April 1879, Ibsen was told the story of an incident that had occurred in a Danish court involving a young married woman from a small town in Zealand, and this drew his mind to planning a new play.”
It was likely that both of these factors were present.
IV
Then there was another work: a one-act play titled *La Révolte* (Rebellion), created in 1870 by the French writer Villiers de L'Isle-Adam.
It was a play featuring only the couple Felix and Elisabeth, in which Elisabeth—unable to endure her husband’s calculating disposition—ultimately abandoned their home, only to return shortly thereafter, resulting in an ending of happy resolution.
Within it lay the following line from Elisabeth.
“You don’t understand—I want to live, you know.”
“Don’t you think it’s only natural that anyone would want to enjoy life?”
“I feel suffocated here—I want something more substantial, I want to breathe the vast air of the heavens!”
“Can you take your banknotes to the grave?”
“How long do you think we can live?”
(Pauses pensively) “Live?—Do I even wish to live? Lover!”
“You say that, don’t you?”
“How pitiful—you’re mistaken!”
“I have no lover, nor will I ever have one after this.”
“I had come to love my husband—you see—and what I sought from him was, if only a fleeting moment, human sympathy.”
“It has now vanished completely, and any pride in love has frozen solid within my veins.”
“While I, oblivious and fretting, offered what I thought would last forever with near-delirious joy—you snatched it away like trash. (omitted)”
And what became of her fulfilling the duties expected of her? Her youth was destroyed, her beauty faded, and her precious evenings were merely soiled by account books.
She had already lost the strength to remain there and discharge those obligations.
Now she must enjoy some measure of freedom; now she must behold broad horizons.
For this reason, she finally left her husband and child behind.
Felix, abandoned in her wake, collapsed in despair.
However, in the next scene, Elisabeth returned at dawn.
“It was too late!—I had already lost my strength.”
“When I peered into the dark night through the carriage window—no matter how much I desired freedom—my heart sank as a cold sense of being a wanderer seeped into my very being.”
“A feeling as though bound by leaden chains… Not knowing where to go—trembling in the cold morning air—I returned.”
“See? I’m not such a beast after all,” Felix said, kissing his wife’s hand.
Elisabeth looked down at it fixedly and said sadly, “Poor thing!”—this marks the end.
It was a fact that there were certain similarities even in the circumstances surrounding the wife leaving home and the husband’s subsequent state to those of Nora and Helmer in *A Doll’s House*. However, there was no way to know whether Ibsen had read *La Révolte* when writing *A Doll’s House*, and thus one could not claim that *A Doll’s House* evolved from *La Révolte* or was modeled after it. In the absence of evidence, it was most appropriate to regard them as unrelated—mere coincidences. One could not think of Ibsen as someone who would imitate the superficial form of another’s work that had appeared merely a decade prior, and the conceptual foundation had already clearly shown its beginnings in his own *The League of Youth*, which predated *La Révolte*. Moreover, *La Révolte* ultimately could not match *A Doll’s House* in dramatic value. The dialogue, with its smooth yet verbose stench, felt dated; the exaggerated emotions and crude elements also felt antiquated. It still could not escape the feeling of being a pre-Ibsen work. While it went without saying that the endings of the two plays differed entirely, the conclusion of *La Révolte* had the air of providing an answer when compared to *A Doll’s House*, which left behind the question of what would become of Nora after she departed her home. However, this was not because Elisabeth had returned enlightened and satisfied; rather, she had sadly returned having lost the strength to resolve things herself, and thus in truth, it did not provide an answer but left the problem as it stood.
V
In stark contrast to this, the famous adapted version of *A Doll’s House*—where Ibsen had been compelled by popular taste to alter the ending—resolved everything through parental love, thereby smothering the problem before it could even be acknowledged as such.
If we now translate and present this revised ending, the text from line 16 on page 126 of this book changes as follows.
Nora: "The relationship between us must become a true marriage."
“Goodbye!”
Helmer: “It can’t be helped—go!”
(Grabbing Nora’s hand) “But before that, you must bid farewell to the children!”
Nora: “Let go of me!”
“I won’t see the children!”
“It’s too painful to bear!”
Helmer (pushing Nora toward the door on the left): “You must see them!”
(opens the door and says quietly): “Look there—the children are sound asleep, knowing nothing.”
“When they wake tomorrow and seek their mother’s presence, by then—motherless children.”
Nora (trembling): “Motherless... children!”
Helmer: “Exactly—you were once the same.”
Nora: “Motherless children!”
(Unable to bear it, drops her travel bag) “Ah—I can’t forgive myself, but I can’t abandon them like this and leave!” (sinks halfway to the floor before the door)
Helmer (rejoicing, in a gentle voice): “Nora!”
(Curtain)
It goes without saying that such adaptations destroy the spirit of the original text and render it shallow.
Therefore, regarding this adaptation that Ibsen was compelled to write, he sent the following letter to Heinrich Laube, a theater director in Vienna.
February 18, 1880, in Munich
Dear Sir—I am delighted to hear that my recent work *A Doll’s House* is to be performed at the Vienna City Theater under your esteemed direction.
"It is my understanding that you hold the opinion that this play, by virtue of its ending being as it is, does not properly conform to the so-called 'laws of drama.' However, do you truly place such great value upon these so-called laws?"
In my view, the laws of drama can be altered in any manner; they should be made to conform to literary facts, but conversely, I believe that literature should not be made to conform to laws.
The fact that this play, with its current ending, has achieved nearly unprecedented success in Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen serves as clear evidence of this principle.
The revised ending was not created because I deemed it necessary, but solely at the request of a theater director in Northern Germany and an actress who portrayed Nora in touring productions in that region.
I hereby humbly send you a copy of part of the aforementioned revised version.
After reviewing it, I earnestly request your understanding that using such a thing would merely serve to needlessly weaken the effect of this work—it is my utmost hope.
I humbly believe without doubt that you will faithfully stage this play in its original form.
Respectfully
Regarding the circumstances that had compelled such an adaptation, there existed the following letter submitted to Denmark's *Nationaltidende*.
February 17, 1880, in Munich
“To the Editor—According to certain correspondence from Flensburg that I had the honor of reading in your esteemed newspaper No. 1360, *A Doll’s House* (titled *Nora* in Germany) has been performed in that region with alterations to its ending, and it is claimed that these alterations were clearly executed at my instruction.”
This concluding part holds no basis in fact.
Shortly after the publication of *Nora*, I received written communication from Mr. Wilhelm Lange of Berlin—who served as both its translator and my administrative supervisor for theaters in Northern Germany—stating that there was a risk of an alternative version with an altered ending being published, and that consequently, many theaters in Northern Germany would likely choose to stage that version.
In order to prevent such occurrences, I—in anticipation of absolutely unavoidable circumstances—humbly dispatched the altered version of the concluding scene to Mr. Lange.
That is to say, in this scene, Nora does not leave the house but is forcibly dragged by Helmer before the children's room, exchanges terse words, collapses at the doorway, and the curtain descends.
This alteration—as I formally notified even the translator—stands cursed by me as a "barbaric mutilation" inflicted upon this play.
The employment of this revised scene constitutes a complete contravention of my will.
I maintain conviction that most German theaters ought not employ this version.
As long as no literary agreements exist between Germany and Scandinavia, we Scandinavian writers cannot receive the protection of this country’s laws, and German writers in Scandinavia are likewise unable to do so.
Consequently, in Germany, our plays are left to the mercy of translators, theater managers, stage directors, and small theater actors.
When my works face such peril, I, guided by experience, commit the mutilation myself to avoid having them handled and adapted by even more careless and immature hands.
Respectfully
At the time in Germany, such alterations occurred because Nora leaving home faced widespread condemnation.
VI
The public criticism of the ending of *A Doll’s House* largely consisted of statements such as, “No matter how much it may be for her own education, a wife has no right to abandon her husband and leave home—especially to abandon her children and leave. What will become of Nora after she leaves?”
Thus, beginning with Ibsen’s own aforementioned mutilation, various works sprouted from *A Doll’s House* as their seed to satisfy this popular demand among the public.
These are works of the kind that might be termed “later A Doll’s Houses.”
The first of these appeared in the 1890 issue of *English Illustrated Magazine* as Walter Besant’s *The Doll’s House—and After*; according to this work, Nora’s daughter and Krogstad’s son grow up and become engaged to marry.
Helmer becomes a drunkard after Nora leaves.
Krogstad disapproves of his son’s marriage and, using a forged document written by Nora’s daughter’s brother, blackmails the daughter, who then throws herself into water.
Furthermore, Mrs. Edna Dow Cheney—an American suffragist writer—published a pamphlet slightly later titled *Nora’s Returne;asequel to The Doll’s House of Henrik Ibsen*.
In this version, after leaving home, Nora was trained as a nurse. When a cholera outbreak occurred and Helmer contracted the disease, she concealed her identity to be hired back into her former household and saved his life.
When he had nearly recovered from his illness, Helmer recognized Nora in nurse attire, and here they happily reconciled and returned to being husband and wife as before—such was the plot described.
Among other parodies that used *A Doll’s House* as comedic material, the most famous was *Mr. Punch’s Pocket Ibsen* (F. Anstey), created in 1893, which included adaptations of *Rosmersholm*, *Hedda Gabler*, *The Wild Duck*, *The Master Builder*, and others in addition to *A Doll’s House*.
VII
While these works were ultimately not worthy of serious discussion, what might be considered Ibsen’s artistic rebuttal to the criticism that “a wife has no right to abandon her husband and children” was *Ghosts*, which followed *A Doll’s House*.
In *Ghosts*, Mrs. Alving attempted to abandon her dissolute husband and child and leave home but changed her mind and stayed, sacrificing herself to conceal the family’s crimes from both her child and society.
However, in the end, Oswald—the beloved son—suffered the consequences of his father’s dissolute ways and met a cruel death, bringing the entire family to a tragic fate.
Even if Nora had reversed her decision and stayed home at that time, that would by no means have been a reason for happiness—it was this meaning that the work sought to convey.
Moreover, in cases where Nora and Helmer did not marry as mutually self-aware individuals, what should ultimately be done? The work said to be Ibsen’s answer to this problem was *The Lady from the Sea*. In this play, Ellida similarly came to realize the injustice of her marriage, sought to break free from it, and found herself drawn toward a mysterious lover from the sea. Reluctantly, her husband Wangel granted her freedom and told Ellida to take full responsibility and decide her own course of action. When she was granted her own freedom and made to bear responsibility, she realized for the first time that leaving her husband’s home was not her true desire, and as an independent individual, she vowed love anew to her husband and the children from his previous marriage. First became an independent and free individual; then—if true love could be established upon that foundation—true marriage could also be formed: this was the interpretation.
As previously stated, it was not Ibsen’s true intention for these works to be approached as if reading academic treatises on women’s self-awareness, liberation, or marriage issues. Yet at the same time, it remained evident that the human radiance—what one might call the vital heat—emanating from their depths bore an inseparable relationship to these very issues.
From this perspective, the three works—*A Doll’s House*, *Ghosts*, and *The Lady from the Sea*—could be seen as interconnected to form a unified philosophy.
VIII
After Ibsen’s death in 1909, his draft manuscripts were made public.
Among them was *A Doll’s House*.
A comparison between what is believed to be the final draft and the completed *A Doll’s House* revealed numerous points of interest.
That draft, titled *Modern Tragedy Draft* and dated October 19, 1878, in Rome, first set down the following ideas.
There are two types of spiritual laws—two kinds of conscience: one for men, and another entirely different for women.
Men and women do not understand each other; in practical life, women are judged by men’s laws as though they were not women but men.
The wife in this play ended without possessing any concept of what was right or wrong.
Natural feelings on one side and faith in authority on the other plunged her into utter confusion regarding her course.
In today’s society, women could not be women; today’s society was entirely a male society: men created the laws, and the judicial system judged women’s actions from a male perspective.
She forged a signature and took pride in it.
She did it out of love for her husband and to save his life.
However, this husband, driven by an ordinary sense of honor, took the same position as the law and approached this issue from a male perspective.
Inner conflict.
Oppressed and dazzled by her belief in authority, she lost confidence in her moral right and ability to raise her children.
Anguish.
In modern society, mothers fulfilled their duty to propagate the species like certain insects, only to depart and die.
Love of life, love of family, love for husband, children, and kin.
There lay the collapse of feminine thought.
The sudden return of worry and terror.
She had to endure all of that alone.
A cataclysm approached inevitably and unavoidably.
Despair, anguish, and destruction.
It appears that from these fundamental ideas alone, he gradually imparted concrete form.
Following these ideas, he lists the characters:
Stenborg – Secretary
Nora – His wife
Miss Lind (Mrs.) (Widow)
Krogstad – Lawyer
Karen – Nursemaid of the Stenborg household
One maid – Stenborg household
One manservant – Stenborg household
The Stenborg household’s three children
Hank – Doctor
From this, we see that the name Helmer for the protagonist had not yet appeared in this draft plan.
On the contrary, the consul’s name had become the protagonist’s name.
In the synopsis and draft, the name changes to Helmer starting from the third act.
Mrs. Linden was still named Lind in this draft plan, with her status as a wife, widow, or daughter remaining undecided.
Dr. Rank appeared as Dr. Hank initially before changing to Rank from Act II onward.
Following these character listings came a three-act synopsis preceding the actual draft text itself—according to this outline, Dr. Rank did not appear until Act II despite later becoming pivotal.
In contrast,the draft already featured him from Act I.
Nora’s consumption of macaroons was absent from both synopsis and draft.
Consequently,the first act’s most buoyant scene—where Nora offers macaroons to Mrs.Linde and Dr.Rank while teasingly placing one in his mouth with “Dr.Rank,won’t you have a macaroon?”—lacked entirely lines like “You fool?...”
Phrases such as “how wonderful it would feel to say...” remained completely missing from this early version.
IX
Furthermore, the tarantella dance—which forms the vivid centerpiece of *A Doll’s House* (it is said to derive its name from resembling the convulsive movements of those stung by the Italian poisonous spider *tarantula*)—did not appear at all in either the synopsis or the draft.
It first appeared in the completed version.
Therefore, the second act in the draft lacked nearly all the compelling scenes found in the completed version.
In the ending, where Nora frantically danced the tarantella to stop Helmer, the draft instead had her play the piano and sing or dance to Anitra’s song from *Peer Gynt*; thus, subtle moments—such as Nora showing Rank her dance costume or striking him with a silk stocking during their dialogue—could not exist.
Not only that, but from around the time when Rank bared his heart to Nora, she would say, “It was wrong of you to say that to me.”
“Was there any need for you to say that?”—this most richly nuanced episode in the play as an interlude remained almost entirely undeveloped in the draft.
The third act did not differ significantly between the draft and the completed version. This was where Nora was made to advocate for women's self-awareness and liberation; as a problem play, it formed the structural core, and Ibsen was believed to have written it with an unshakable foundational plan from the very beginning. Nevertheless, traces of improvements made from draft to completed version could be seen in crucial areas throughout. With neither Consul Stenborg's masquerade ball nor a tarantella dance present, Nora wore only her evening dress as the couple attended their children's party. It was precisely when Nora emerged within that plain household adorned in her vibrant dancer's attire that the contrast with the later cataclysmic scene gained its compelling nuance—yet this concept had not yet been conceived in the draft. Moreover, scenes such as Rank declaring "At the next masquerade, I intend to become invisible" remained undeveloped there.
Finally, regarding the confrontation scene between Nora and Helmer toward the end—as previously mentioned—it remained largely identical between the draft and completed version. However, take for instance when Nora says, “Thank you for your permission,” enters another room, and declares, “I will remove my doll’s costume.” While this act of “removing the doll’s costume” resonates symbolically with the entire work’s meaning, in the draft she was instead made to utter something utterly meaningless: “I must calm myself down—just for a moment.”
When Helmer declares, “No man would sacrifice his honor for the sake of a loved one,” Nora’s retort—“Yet millions of women have sacrificed theirs”—is acclaimed as a cry of public indignation voiced on behalf of countless women throughout history who resigned themselves to sacrifice for men. In the draft, however, Helmer merely exclaims, “Oh, Nora, Nora!” to which Nora bluntly replies: “And what comes of it? No gratitude, no words of love—not a shred of thought to save me. You just scold me endlessly—even mock my father—cower at every little thing—then mercilessly berate those who’ve sacrificed everything and can’t act!” she declares in a confrontational tone.
Compared to the completed version’s language, the marked difference in dignity and depth goes without saying.
In this manner, *A Doll’s House*—progressively refined from concept to outline, from outline to draft, and then to its completed form today—emerged just over a year after the draft bearing the date October 1878, finally materializing as a published work for the first time on December 4, 1879, in Copenhagen.
X
*A Doll’s House* was first performed at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on December 21, 1879.
The actress who played Nora was Betty Hennings (Fru Betty Hennings), making her the world’s first performer of this famous role.
The actor who portrayed Helmer was Emil Poulsen (Herr Emil Poulsen).
In Sweden’s Stockholm, it was performed at the Dramaten Theatre on January 8, 1880, and in Norway’s Kristiania, it opened at the Kristiania Theatre on the 20th of the same month.
Outside Scandinavia, *A Doll’s House* was first performed in Flensburg, Germany, in February 1880, and in Munich at the Residenz Theatre on March 3 of that year.
For this Munich performance, Ibsen himself attended for the first time; while he received applause outside the curtain after Act II, fierce opposition reportedly erupted from the audience following Act III.
During this production’s rehearsals—which Ibsen attended nearly every day—he graciously thanked all actors post-performance, leading observers to believe he considered the direction flawless; however, he later told acquaintances this was not true.
He reportedly cited multiple dissatisfactions: some actors inadequately understood their roles; the room’s wallpaper color failed to evoke the intended mood; Nora’s hands lacked proper positioning.
Furthermore，within the same year，the play was performed in Hamburg，Dresden，Hanover，Berlin，and other German cities．There，Hedwig Niemann-Raabe（Mrs．Hedwig Niemann-Raabe），who portrayed Nora，became Germany’s most representative Nora actress，preceding Agnes Sorma（Miss Agnes Sorma）of Berlin’s *Deutsches Theater*．
In Vienna，it was first performed in September 1881．
In Russia，it was first performed in St．Petersburg in November 1881 by the renowned actress Madame Modjeska，and the following year in Warsaw，Poland．
In Budapest，Hungary，it premiered in 1889；in Amsterdam，Netherlands，it also premiered that same year；and in Brussels，Belgium，it premiered that year as well—however，this marked the first French-language performance，and the ending had been altered to a more auspicious conclusion．
In Paris，*A Doll’s House* was first performed much later on April 20，1894，at the *Théâtre des Nouveautés*，with actress Madame Réjane as Nora．
In Italy，before actress Eleonora Duse came to perform it，the play was first staged in Turin in 1889，and in Serbia as well，it premiered in Belgrade that same year．
In England, the first performance of an adaptation of *A Doll’s House* took place at London’s Prince’s Theatre on March 3, 1884. This was a three-act play titled *Breaking a Butterfly*, a collaboration between the renowned comedy writer Jones and the story writer Herman (*Breaking a Butterfly* by Henry A. Jones and H. Herman, founded on Ibsen's "Norah"). That it was a trivial piece goes without saying. The next occurred in March 1885, when an amateur theater club in London staged the first private performance adhering to the original text. However, this production was reportedly neither particularly earnest nor noteworthy. The first true performance of *A Doll’s House* in England came much later in 1889, following the completion of William Archer’s translation.
In America, earlier than in Britain, in December 1883, the actress Modjeska first performed Nora under the title *Thora* in Louisville, Kentucky.
It is said that the outcome was crafted to conclude auspiciously, but whether it was based on what had been used in Germany or incorporated separate adaptations remains unclear.
The first English translation of *A Doll's House* was made in 1880, the year following the original's publication, by a Copenhagen resident named T. Weber under the title *Nora*. However, this translation was reportedly extremely poor due to the translator's inadequate command of English. The next translation appeared in 1882 by an Englishwoman named Miss H.F. Lord, who similarly rendered it as *Nora*. This edition included a preface framing Ibsen as an audacious feminist theorist. Subsequently came the version Modjeska used for her American production—a translation purportedly created through collaboration between the actress's husband, secretary, and others.
Mr. Archer’s definitive translation was published in 1889, coinciding with the commemorative edition of the script performed by actress Achurch’s troupe at London’s Novelty Theatre from June 7th to 29th that same year.
At this time, it was first titled in English as *Et Dukkehjem*—that is, *A Doll’s House*.
However, Mr. Arne Kildal, editor of *Ibsen’s Speeches and New Letters Collection*, argued that to better honor the original title, it should have been rendered *Et Dōru Hōmu* (A Doll Home)—or *Ningyō Katei* (Doll Household).
In any case, this translation established the authoritative version of *A Doll’s House* while marking Britain’s first encounter with productions that came close to presenting Ibsen’s plays in their complete form.
The cast for this production was as follows.
Helmer………………Herbert Waring
Nora……………………Janet Achurch (Miss Janet Achurch)
Rank…………………Charles Charington
Krogstad………………Royce Carlton
Mrs. Linden…………Gertrude Warden
It is said that with this play’s premiere, Ibsen truly established his literary reputation in England for the first time.
Achurch was a renowned actress even when performing Shakespearean plays.
The troupe, having concluded this production, immediately set sail for Australia and went on to perform *A Doll’s House* across Australia, New Zealand, India, and Egypt.
In this sequence, within about a decade after its publication, *A Doll’s House* spread throughout Europe and America and has endured to this day.
In Japan, Takayasu Gekkō first translated it in Meiji 34 (1901).
The translation now being made public here is based on the version once published in the January 1910 issue of Waseda Bungaku, with minor corrections applied.
This translation was based on Mr. Archer’s English translation and Mr. Lange’s German translation.
From September 22 to 24, 1911, the Literary Arts Association performed this script in their inaugural private performance, which also commemorated the opening of their institute’s stage. However, on this occasion—with only Acts I and III performed and the middle act omitted—the production could not avoid leaving an incomplete impression as a full play. Nevertheless, in our country it achieved success nearly unprecedented in new theater history. Subsequently, from November 28 of the same year for one week, the association staged all three acts of *A Doll’s House* at the Imperial Theatre as their second public performance.
This marked not only the first performance of *A Doll’s House* in our country but also the inaugural serious modern drama to achieve success by abandoning the use of traditional male actors specializing in female roles and instead centering on actresses.
The roles at that time were as follows:
Helmer: Doi Yōmoto
Krogstad: Tōgi Toshiharu
Rank: Mori Eijirō
Servant: Nishihara Katsuhiko
Child: Kiyoko
Teiko
Ellen: Yokogawa Tadaharu
Anna: Sasaki Tsumoru
Mrs. Linden: Hirota Hamako
Nora: Matsui Sumako
The same troupe staged *A Doll’s House* for one week beginning March 14, 1912 (Meiji 45) at Osaka’s Naka-za Theater, and this too proved successful.
The history of *A Doll’s House* follows roughly the course outlined above.
March 1913 (Taishō 2)
Mr. Hōgetsu
Pagetop