1.

Significance of title
Norwegian playwright, Henrick Ibsen’s play Ghosts is a highly controversial play and
the title can be interpreted with multiple layers of meaning. The supreme significance
of the title can be attributed to the worn ideals and principles of law and order so
misapplied that they have no actual significance. Deception is one of the major
themes of this play. Different characters in the story conceal truths and keep secrets
from each other, resulting in a long-term effect of lying as the central theme in the
plot.

All most all characters are manifested by ghosts that they are unable to control. There
are five living characters in Ibsen’s Ghosts. Mrs Alving, a widow, and the play’s
protagonist; Osvald, her son; Pastor Manders, her denied love; Regina, the maid and
half-sister of Osvald; and Engstrand, Regina’s supposed father. Regina’s true father
is Captain Alving. Both Captain Alving and Regina’s mother Johanna are dead, yet
both are accountable for the unfolding tragedy. They are instances of the ghosts.
Mrs. Alving, though an emancipated idealist follows some of the instances of superficial
morality and social standards. The greatest quintessence is the alleged covering of her
spouse’s infidelity through benign acts which are again ghosts of empty social
standards. She is well acquainted with the immoral nature of her husband. But instead
of courageously facing the truth, she opts to cover her husband’s licentiousness.

The second meaning is applied to those ghosts who are the sins of the past, firmly
rooted into the present and haunting the future. An ancient axiom goes like this “Every
family has a skeleton in its cupboard”. Thus every family has its own secrets of the past
which if unearthed will dishevel the future. The major characters namely Mrs. Alving,
Oswald and Regina are subjected to the sins of the past and the ghostly imagery is of
the late Captain Alving.

The spectre which haunts Mrs. Alving is of the infidelity and bad character of her
husband. She is forever traumatized by the indecent actions of her husband. Therefore,
she starts seeing the ghost of her husband’s vices in other people. When she views
Engstrand a drunkard, she immediately associates it with an avatar of her husband who
too was a drunkard. After witnessing Oswald and Regina in a near incestuous relation,
the ghost of her husband’s past start haunting her. This ghostly imagery of the past was
the seduction of the maid Johanna by Captain Alving.
Oswald is the next recipient who too, is haunted by his father’s past and by the “legacy”
his father bestowed upon him. He represents the doomed product of a diseased society.
As the old doctor rightly says, “the sins of the father visited the son”, Oswald has
become the recipient of genetic syphilis. Due to such grave illness he has become a
“living vegetable”, incapacitated and enfeebled. He is forever displayed in a sickly
manner unable to live a youthful life. His only joy of life is her paramour Regina who
upon learning the truth leaves him to a life of prostitution.
Regina is the last receiver of Captain Alving’s illicit sexual life. She is the daughter born
out of the illicit union of the captain and his housemaid Johanna. The housemaid is later
married to Engstrand in order to save Alving’s reputation which eternally devastates the
legitimate right of Regina as the daughter of the house. She is forced to live a penurious
life under a carpenter’s name and become the nurse of her half-brother. The
obfuscation of events leads to her unknowingly make her half-brother her lover and
ultimately turning to prostitution.
The final interpretation of the title is through the dwindling character of Oswald. Nothing
is permanent and thus like Oswald, we ourselves are ghosts, just waiting for our deaths.
He knows he is going to die, and waiting for death makes him a lunatic wheedling for
euthanasia. He repeatedly pleads in front of his mother to emancipate him so that he
can embrace the sun. Thus, the sun is the symbol of inevitable truth which reflects the
evanescent nature of life and that we all have to die one day. On the other hand, the
sun is also a symbol of hope which Oswald yearns. He is hopeful that in the next life he
will truly be blessed like an artist exploring the bounties of God freely and ultimately
attaining “the joy of his life”.

2.Art of characterisation: Helen Alving; supporting characters: Oswald, Regina

Mrs Alving Character:

Like Bernard Shaw, the themes of Henrik Ibsen’s plays are pertaining to a number of
social issues which are relevant in the present situation. In other words, it can clearly be
said that themes of his plays are timeless. The themes of the plays cannot be limited to
a specific time period. He is also said to be a realistic playwright who highlights
everything without any biasness in world of English literature. His famous plays are
Brand , Pillars of Society , A Doll’s House , The Lady from the Sea, Hedda Gabler
and When We Dead Awaken . All these plays are concerned with the different social
problems. Although Ghost is not one of his successful plays which place him in the list
of renowned playwrights but the relevance as well as the importance of the play named
Ghost (1881) cannot be ignored or overlooked just because of its unsuccessful
response. The story of the Ghost is believed to be a continuance of Nora’s life, a major
female protagonist in A Doll’s House (1879). Edward Beyer writes that “In Ibsen, the
inner continuity from work to work is often marked, but never more so than between A
Doll’s House and the work which followed” ( Ibsen XXXI )
The play begins when Mrs. Alving with Pastor Manders discusses about the opening of
the Orphanage to remember and commemorate the name of Captain Alving who is not
alive. They discuss whether they should insure the Orphanage for future unwanted
disaster and finally they come to the conclusion of not insuring the Orphanage. During
their dialogue, the readers come to know about his arrival of Oswald, the only son of
Mrs. Alving. Oswald has come to his mother’s home after the gap of many years from
abroad. The relationship between Mrs. Alving and Captain Alving is not good. They do
not lead a happy married life just because of the immoral behavior of her husband. She
endeavours to dissuade him from indulging in extramarital affairs but she fails. She then
decides to leave Captain Alving but Pastor Manders persuades her not to abandon him
and advices her to perform her social responsibilities in her married life. She eventually
tries to follow the path suggested by Manders but here she also fails because her
husband is not ready to quit his ways of life. Through the dialogue between Mrs Alving
and Manders, a bitter truth regarding the biological father of Regina Engstrand is
disclosed. The father of Regina is not Engstrand but Captain Alving who had
extramarital affairs with the mother of Regina named Johanna, the then maid of the
Alving household.
This truth is not known to anyone except Mrs. Alving. Not having a good relationship
with her father, Regina lives with Mrs. Alving. With passage of the time, Mrs Alving
comes to know about the incestuous relationship between Regina and Oswald. She
very well knows marriage between both is not possible because Regina is Oswald’s
step-sister. When they discuss the whole matter, they get shocking news regarding the
fire in the Orphanage. The fire destroys everything. The blame of fire is partially
imposed upon Pastor Manders for his negligence towards the safety of the Orphanage.
After this disastrous incident, Engstrand and Manders leave the home and plan to
establish a business for the tourists. Now the climax of the play comes. There are only
three characters including Mrs Alving, Oswald and Regina who lead the play to the end.
Through the discussion, Regina comes to know about her real biological father being
Captain Alving and decides to leave Oswald because he is her step brother and due to
his being fatally illn and leaves him permanently. Finally Mrs Alving becomes aware of
Oswald’s illness named syphilis that he inherited from his father. Oswald knows the
disease is not curable and he is going to die. Perhaps he is in the last stage of the
disease. Finally the attack of the decease sets in but his mother cannot decide as to
whether she is capable of administering the fatal dose of morphia to her son to give him
a merciful end.The play has an open ending. It is now the responsibility of the reader to
decide what happens in the future of Mrs. Alving and Oswald.
After reading the story of the play, now the whole scenario of the play is clear to the
readers and they now can better understand and fathom the situation of Mrs. Alving’s
failure in her domestic life. The play ostensibly show Mrs. Alving is not directly or
indirectly responsible for her failure but the circumstances which she has to undergo are
responsible. Firstly , when she comes to know about her husband’s illicit relationship
with other women, she decides to leave her husband but cannot take such a bold
decision because she is not expected to leave her husband in the society. The society
has made exploitative and biased social codes which do not allow women to live an
independent life. They have to live according to the social rules and regulations and are
trained to follow these anti-feminist social ideas. Prmod K. Nayar also writes the same
aspect of the patriarchal society by saying that “gender roles are pre-determined and
the woman is trained to fit into those rules. This means that role like ‘daughter’ or
‘mother’ are not natural but social because the women has to be trained to think, talk,
act in particular ways that suit the role” (Nayar 83).
The same situation happens with Mrs. Alving when she explains to Manders about her
tragic and traumatic condition with her husband. It is ironic that when Manders becomes
aware of the whole situation, he does not recommend her to abandon her husband but
instead persuades her to continue her married life with her husband. It is a well known
accepted fact that sometimes the changed situation whether it is positive or negative
may bring positive changes in the behavior of the targeted or desired person. A person
who is in the wrong track may believe that the changed situation is not in her/his favour,
it would be good for him/her change her attitude according to situation. But the situation
does not arise in the case of Captain Alving because Mrs. Alving’s views are changed
by Paster Manders. Manders can be described as a person who is patriarchal in nature.
He thinks it is the duty of Mrs. Alving to serve her husband in every adverse condition. It
does not matter in which condition she has to live. His mental set up becomes clear
when he says to her in the following line: “What right have we to happiness? No Mrs.
Alving, we must do our duty! And your duty was to remain with the man you had chosen
and to whom you were bound by a sacred bond” (Ibsen 26).
All these patriarchal and anti-feministic sentimental ideologies prevent her from
abandoning her husband. It is not that she doesn't like her freedom and individuality in
her personal life. She wants to live an independent life in which she is free from any
social obligation. She also makes her position clear when she says to Manders that “But
I can’t stand being bound by all these conventions. I can’t! I must find my own way to
freedom” (Ibsen 37). It is clear that she is not ready to live with Captain Alving but social
conditions do not allow her to follow her feeling of freedom. Moreover it is not that she
does not try to bring changes into her husband’s behavior. She undoubtedly does
everything she can do but finally fails. She does what her husband commands her to do.
She starts spending most of her time with him so as not to let him follow his own way of
life. She also begins to drink. All these critical situations she explains to Manders:
“There I had to sit alone with him, had to cling my glass with his and drink with him,
listen to his obscene and senseless driveling, had to fight with my fists to haul him to
bed-” (Ibsen 31).
These lines clearly says that she does not leave any stone unturned to save her
husband from treachery and illicit relationship with other women. What more she can do
except giving her life. More important point is that she does hide all these facts about
her husband’s immoral life from the society.She does not want to tarnish the fake image
of Captain Alving:
Mrs Alving: And now I had to fight a double battle, fight with all my strength to prevent
anyone knowing what kind of a man my child’s father was. And you know what a
winning personality Alving had. No one could believe anything but good of him. He was
one of those people whose reputation remain untarnished by the way they live (Ibsen
29)
From a different point of view, perhaps Mrs Alving is responsible for her failure just
because she does not determinately raise her voice against the misconduct of her
husband. If she would be a strong woman in nature, she would have changed her
husband. She lives with her husband like a typical wife who accepts everything that her
husband does and it does not matter whether his conducts are wrong or right. She
should not bend and yield before her husband. Through her defensive and aggressive
attitude, she would possibly succeed in her doing. If she is not responsible for all such
adverse circumstances directly, she can’t be acquitted from the blame that to some
extent she is also responsible. It is also believed that sometimes people do not get
changed by positive behavior. Negative forces also sometimes play a significant role in
changing the behavior of people. If Mrs. Alving applied the negative enforcement to her
husband’s attitude, to some extent she would be able to bring desired changes in her
husband. It can be said that she lacks critical power and prowess.
The second or the final failure of Mrs. Alving in her life is the failure of her son, Oswald
who is the only son of Captain Alving and Mrs Alving. Oswald is the only reason to live
for Mrs.Alving. She expresses her love towards Oswald by saying: “Of course I will, my
dearest, my only boy. I’ve nothing else to live for. Only you” (Ibsen 71). This is the only
situation in the play which makes the reader feel pity and sorrowful towards Mrs Alving
because her husband is dead and no one is present on the earth for Mrs Alving except
her son, Oswald. From the very beginning of the play, she has unduly expectation from
her son that her future life would be happy and peaceful because her son has recently
arrived from abroad. But she does not know something bad is waiting for her. She feels
that after a long period of painful and traumatic experience of life, new rays of hope and
prosperity would reach to her. But it is a paradox that everything becomes worse when
Oswald returns home. Firstly, the Orphanage which is being built to commemorate her
husband is destroyed by an unknown incident of fire. She doesn't know who is
responsible for the fire in the Orphanage.
Then she becomes aware of the illicit relationship between Oswald and Regina. Both
Oswald and Regina love each other but are not aware of the fact that both are half
brother and sister. To some extent, she succeeds in separating them by revealing the
truth regarding the biological father of Regina; she fails in protecting her son from
everything which is inappropriate for her son. She sends him abroad so as to save him
from inheriting the immoral as well anti-social features of his father. As she says to
Manders: “And I had another motive. I wanted to make sure that my own son, Oswald,
should not inherit anything from his father” (Ibsen 31). But she does not know that
inheriting the characteristics from parents is natural and it cannot be confined by
anyone. And Oswald is not exceptional. Oswald inherits fatal disease from his father
which can’t be cured and this disheartening fact is known to Oswald. From the moral
point of view, it is not the failure of Mrs. Alving because she can’t do anything to prevent
the process of inheritance as it is a natural process. The most disheartening thing is that
she failed the exam to become a good mother. The intention of Mrs. Alving to bring
Oswald on the right track is not wrong but her way or method of doing this is completely
wrong.
It is a well known truth that if one wants to protect one’s child, the best way of doing this
is to love children and share their problems. It is also the duty of the parents to remain
with their children so that children can have discussion with their parents. But this does
not happen in the case of Mrs Alving. She runs from her motherly duties. She
deliberately keeps her son away from her care. This method is wrong. This is not the
final and ultimate solution to the problem. The solution lies in caring for Oswald. There is
a well known saying that a mother knows everything about her son. But it is pathetic that
Mrs Alving is not aware of the illness from which Oswald is suffering. Oswald’s traumatic
mental condition can be observed in the following lines which he says to his mother:
“That’s the dreadful thing. Beyond cure – ruined for life – because of my own folly.
Everything I wanted to accomplish in the world - not even to dare to think of it – not to
be able think of it. Oh, if only I could start my life over again and undo it all!” (Ibsen 52).
Through the discussion between Mrs. Alving and Oswald, the readers become aware of
the truth that there is real love in Oswald towards his mother. Evern Mrs. Alving also
accepts the truth by saying: “I realize it now. You are not mine. I must win you” (Ibsen
70).

Oswald's character

Regina's character
Regina represents two important forces in this play: upward mobility and sex. She uses
the latter to get the former.Regina is the illegitimate daughter of Mrs. Alving's husband
and her former maid, Johanna. As such, Regina is a daily reminder of Captain Alving's
wayward life. She's young, vivacious, and attractive. None of the men in the play fails to
comment on how she's "grown." Mrs. Alving knows it too, which is why she tries to
protect Regina both from Engstrand – probably sensing his shady motives – and from
her own son.
Regina doesn't mind using sex to get what she wants: security. She's already scheming
to attract Oswald and almost lets it slip to Engstrand: "No; if things go as I want them to
– Well there's no saying – there's no saying" (1.69). But we see early on that it's not
about love, because just a few moments later she is asking Pastor Manders (indirectly
of course) to consider her as a partner:
"Now, if it were in a thoroughly nice house, and with a real gentleman […] Then I should
be glad to go to town. It's very lonely out here; you know yourself, sir, what it is to be
alone in the world. And I can assure you I'm both quick and willing. Don't you know of
any such place for me, sir?" (1.130-134)
Regina works all angles, and, like Engstrand, excels in giving people what they want.
She's learning French for Oswald and acting pious for Pastor Manders. She would deny
the association with Engstrand, though; "that filthy carpenter" is the last person with
whom she wants to associate. When he asks her to come to town with him, she almost
spits at him: "Me, that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs Alving! Me, that am
treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you? – to a house
like yours? For shame!" (1.33).
Engstrand's brothel is the last place Regina wants to go, yet she's quick to recognize
how things stand at the end of the play. She can't marry Oswald, so that door has been
closed. Best to run after the other possibilities – Manders and Engstrand – who are
leaving on the ferry. Mrs. Alving fears her demise, and Ibsen gives Regina a rare
moment of emotional power. She looks sharply at Mrs. Alving and says, "I think you
might have brought me up as a gentleman's daughter, ma'am; it would have suited me
better" (3.150). And with that, she's on the steamer, most likely on her way to work at
"Chamberlain Alving's Home", a brothel.

2. Plot construction
As in most of Ibsen's problem plays, Ghosts begins at the collective climax in the
lives of its characters. The play deals only with the consequences of these past lives
and does not need to take place in more than one twenty-four hour vigil. Although the
relationships among the characters are close and lifelong, only the crowding of
emotions and events within the three acts forces each one to face the truth about
himself and about his society.

Captain Alving's character bears this out. The source of the hereditary flaw which
destroys his children, his presence pervades each scene of Ghosts. As each living
character illuminates the nature of the diseased profligate, he finally stands as clearly
and as well-drawn to the audience as if he were constantly active on stage. Almost as a
"secondary" protagonist, Alving undergoes a change of character until he is presented
to the spectator as an individual whom society has wronged. Finally, when Mrs. Alving
recognizes how she destroyed his "joy of life," the dead husband is no longer a ghost,
but a humanized victim of the social conventions.

3. Ibsen's use of modern realism in Ghosts

Naturalism came into being in the 19th century when authors and playwrights started to
do something against the social situation back then. In contrast to the plays people
wrote before, naturalists focused their stories onto common problems that happened all
the time mostly among middle-class people. Naturalists wanted to rebel against the
hierachy of their society and most of all they wanted to show the higher-class people
what life was like in poorer classes. They presented them poverty, miserable children,
unhappy marriages and adultery, the situation of illegitimate children, the exploitation of
workers, alcoholism, violence, crime and much more. By opening the readers' eyes,
naturalists wanted to evoke the conscience of wealthy people. Emile Zola (1840-1902)
and Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) can be regarded as one of the most important naturalists
that have ever lived. Zola wrote down a theory, "Le roman emperimental" which said
that people's fate was determined by their genes, their race and the social environment
they grew up in. In his plays, Henrik Ibsen draws the audience's attention onto the "life-
lie" in general. He wants his audience to understand that the truth is always better than
wearing a mask for a life-time. His most famous books were "Ghosts", "A Doll's House"
and the "Wild Duck". Ghosts is a typical naturalistic play. It shows the world as it was in
the 19th century and teaches the audience that you cannot escape the truth. The plot is
simple which makes it even more realistic. At the beginning of the play, Mrs. Alving, the
widow of Captain Alving who was a well-known and respected man in the village, is
planning to open a children's home dedicated to her husband. Mrs. Alving receives
Pastor Manders, an old friend of hers, to discuss the bureaucratic details and the
opening event itself. In the course of their conversation the Pastor accuses her of not
having led a moral life due to the fact that she left her husband a short period after their
marriage and even tried to seduce the Pastor. ...read more.

Middle

Shortly afterwards Osvald has his final attack and dies. Konstantin Stanislavski
(1863-1938) was one of the most important theorists in theatre history. In 1906 he
developed the "System" a theory that would later on help many actors to act
convincingly. The System consists of 9 points: "action" (as an actor you have to know
why your character is doing what he does, or what your purpose is when entering the
stage), "If" (think about how you would react in a certain situation and then reflect this
feeling onto your character), "the given circumstance" (an actor should create an
environment before acting out a scene),"imagination" (imagine all different aspects of
your character), "unit and objectives" (what is the character thinking, feeling? when
would you end one scene and start another?), "super-objective and through-line
action" (what is the character's goal? What is the theme of the entire play?), "emotion
memory" (can you remember a situation in which you felt like your character? Were
you in a similar situation?) and "tempo-rhythm in movement" (decide who are the
quiet and slow characters! Who goes hurriedly through life?). At the beginning of Act
2 Mrs.Alving has just disovered that her son and Regina are starting to have a
relationship. She is shocked because of her knowledge that Regina is actually
Osvald's halfsister. Still she tries to comfort Pastor Manders because his view of the
world as he has known it, has definitely fallen apart. The dinner must have taken
place without much talking, it's unlikely that Pastor Manders and Mrs.Alving were very
communicative. I'm sure that Mrs.Alving thought intensely about whether or not to tell
Regina and Osvald that they were so closely related to each other. She thinks that
again, she will not have the courage to tell Osvald the truth. She feels she has
already gone too far. MRS.ALVING: If I had true courage I would take Osvald aside,
look him in the eye, and say, "Listen, your father was a disgusting, degenerate
human being." ...read more.

Conclusion

Take me." She will never forget his reaction. He drove her back into the paths of duty
and righteousness, even though it was her husband who had come off the way from
the beginning. But the Pastor only blamed her and never stopped telling her about
her duty. Maybe this was his way to cope with that hopeless love. MANDERS: To
expect happiness in this life is a form of arrogance, Mrs. Alving. It is the sign of a
rebellious soul. What right do we have to happiness? We must do our duty,
Mrs.Alving, and your duty was to stand by the man whom had chosen as your
husband, the man to whom you were bound by the most sacred bonds... It was your
humble duty to bear the cross which a higher power had chosen fo you. But instead,
that rebellious soul of yours flings down that cross[...] I was only a humble instrument
in the hand of a great purpose. You returned to your duty and to obedience: hasn't
that proved a blessing for you ever since? The GHOSTS from her past will never
leave Helene Alving. In his Drama Henrik Ibsen demonstrated the passive society of
the 19th century or even nowadays and the hypcritical morals of the Church back
then. The climax at the end prevents any illusions of bourgeois conventions. People
can't cope with the truth because they would then realize that their whole life was a
lie, which leads us on to the often discussed matter of the life-lie. If someone finally
admits the truth to himself and his fellow citizens, he will have the freedom to actually
change his life and not only complaining about it. All in all Ghosts is another play that
shows us that the truth will always sooner or later come to the surface and that it's
better to see things the way they are, than be disillusioned later on. Written by Verena
Pichler ...read more.

4. Major themes highlighted: thematic appraisal

Ghosts is a revolutionary play which sceptically challenges those social truths
assumed to be self-evident. Character and plot explore bourgeois morality and its
consequences. Ghosts was initially constructed as an attack upon marriage. Irony is
consistently used to scrutinise religion, class, and gender relations as pillars of
society. The symbolic use of “ghosts” does not simply refer to legacies of guilt and the
central characters’ burdens, it is symbolic of the haunting, decaying value system
which remains in the present though it belongs in the past. James McFarlane called
Ibsen an “indisputable leader in the campaign for a modern, radical and realistic
literature who most powerfully challenged the values of the existing middle-class
society” (69), and I’m inclined to agree. Ibsen created a social laboratory to depict the
social, economic, and psychological tensions of the society he was commenting on.
The small cast and static set lend themselves to this in stunning ways.

Georg Brandes’ criticism of Victorian society as a facade of false morality and a

manipulation of public opinion was shared by Ibsen. Ghosts is concerned with liberty
of thought and individual truth, contrasted with the narrow religious dogmatism that
Pastor Manders personifies. Manders is presented as a feeble servant of orthodoxy.
His readiness to bow to public opinion in matters of literature and morality
characterises him as arguably the least free individual within the play, his role is to
reinforce the existing social and moral structure, even to the extent of knowing
“absolutely nothing about what you are condemning” (101). He never commits or
expresses himself, and his individuality becomes less pronounced as the play
progresses.

Manders life is centred on the protection of his status and reputation in the
community, not the development of his self and intellect. This is perhaps best
exemplified in his proposal to not insure the orphanage on grounds of faith in divine
providence. This literalism betrays the equally humorous “tempting of fate”, and much
of Ghosts power derives from the contrast between the absurd and the comic. Ibsen
relentlessly ridicules orthodoxy and the fear of public opinion. The amount of time
devoted to the insurance discussion hints at the significance of the decision later in
the play, and provides dramatic irony through Manders’ repetition of “higher
protection”. The burning orphanage symbolically represents the failure of
conventional beliefs and the fragility of false reputation.

In challenging bourgeois values, the relationship of each character to money and

“respectable” marriage is important. Manders’ self-interest in reducing the “burden on
the rates” (104-5), Engstrand and Regine’s pursuit of financial security, and Mrs
Alving’s funding of the orphanage being driven by her desire to rid herself of the
financial bargain her marriage represented. It is her desire to provide for herself and
Oswald without wealth generated by Chamberlain Alving, and as insurance against
the truth coming out. Its purpose is to cleanse herself of the “ghosts” that haunt her,
rather than the public preservation of the Captain’s name, hence the ease with which
she agrees to not take insurance. Oswald alone shows no regard for wealth. He
speaks of happy relationships conducted outside of marital convention on grounds of
poverty, which far from being “blatant immorality” or “sham marriages”, involve “eager
young people in love” (111). It is this eternal truth that still resonates with me in the
twenty-first century.

Ibsen’s challenge to religious conformity rests on the naivety of the Pastor, evident to
all but himself. He is fooled by Engstrand, eventually blackmailed into financing his
prostitution house. He rages at Engstrand’s deceit in his marriage to Johanna, and
“the immorality of a match of that sort” (122), but is easily persuaded to a more
charitable view, swayed by Engstrand’s use of “pious” language. Mrs Alving’s tease
that Manders is “a great big baby” (134) alludes to his gullibility. The Pastor is a
morally bankrupt hypocrite.

Even after learning Alving’s true nature, Manders would rather praise him than risk
scandal should the truth come out. The obsession with avoiding a scandal dictates
many of the choices made: preserving Alving’s “good name” with the orphanage, the
Pastor’s refusal to take Mrs Alving in when she fled her husband. Reputation and
order are crucial within the play, the bourgeois facade Ibsen attacks mercilessly.
Dramatic irony is used to show that decisions based upon public opinion are
catastrophic. With the burning orphanage, the truth will come out, as it does ironically
with Engstrand’s parting remark that by calling his “saloon” the Captain Alving home
there’ll be a place worthy of his memory.

Mrs Alving’s character shows the limited freedom and choice for women in
nineteenth-century conventional society. Her marriage is a financial calculation made
by others; her duty is to sacrifice herself to her husband, her actions are policed.
Despite this she is presented as thoughtful in her view that law and order is the cause
“of all the trouble in the world” (123), and her acceptance of her own cowardice in the
face of Manders’ defence of duty and responsibility. She also demonstrates
independent judgement, sending her son away even though this sacrifice casts her
as a bad mother and in her real motivation for building the orphanage.

Mrs Alving’s opinions are her emancipation, it is precisely her vocalising that combats
the hypocrisy and conventionality of such respectable pillars as the Pastor. Yet any
view of her as a heroine is simplistic, her concern regarding reputation preserves the
appearance at the expense of truth, and she is too often silenced by her pragmatism.

Helene alone develops throughout the play revealing unorthodox beliefs on marriage,
truth and happiness. Her desire to liberate her and Oswald with the truth presents the
great struggle of the play, and she, like her son, genuinely challenges the values
imposed by society; her willingness to accept a potential relationship between Oswald
and Regine despite the incestuous implications of it, her deserting her husband, or
her desire to confess the whole truth to the children. An initial reading of her warning
to the Pastor “not a word” indicates the same fear of public opinion that controls many
of the decisions made in the play (120). A more developed character analysis reveals
preparation for arguably her most significant moment of practical radicalism, revealing
the truth, “now I can speak plainly… nobody’s ideals are going to suffer by it”. When
she reveals the truth, her reference to Alving’s “joy of life” reinforces the idea of the
sins of the father revisiting the son, to an extent excuses her late husband, while
taking partial responsibility herself. Truth, finally, is complex.

Social class and the notion of respectability dictate the language used by characters
in interacting with each other, and the play is essentially an extended debate on the
assumed moral codes of the era. The foul-mouthed colloquial speech Engstrand uses
when addressing Regine switches piously from “damned” and the devil to “Lord”
when persuading Manders to fund his enterprise. Coupled with Ibsen’s use of asides,
the audience always has a more complete view of the linguistic and moral
contradictions that dominate the play than any character. By demonstrating stark
difference between the private and public facade, Ibsen creates suspense. A similar
effect is created through Engstrand’s dress, he opens in his dirty work clothes, but
attempts to appear pious in act two, in his “Sunday best” reinforcing “I often used to
say a prayer or two myself down there in the evenings”. This manipulation is evident,
and highlights Engstrand’s awareness of public reputation. Engstrand is evidently not
“respectable”, unlike his “daughter” with her early attempts at educated conversation.
He does, however, display realism about his own self-interest amidst the “unreal”
value system of the community. As does Regine, leaving upon discovering the truth,
demonstrating her primary concern of climbing the social ladder. Manders’ religious
rhetoric never wavers, whether he is addressing as friend or priest. The
repetitiveness of his language in referring to “law, order, or public opinion” all
demonstrate the dull conformity he personifies. His “godly” life has negated his
individuality, and his beliefs in duty and obligation, patriarchy and respectability are
irrelevant, and are presented as such. Oswald, on the other hand, is driven by the
aesthetic. Even his softening of the brain is described as “cherry-red velvet curtains,
soft and delicate to touch”. The sensuality of this alludes to his artistic nature and
humane individuality, in contrast with the other characters.

Ibsen emphasises the complexity of family relationships beyond the one dimensional
idea of respect for one’s elders that governs Manders. Regine’s disgust for
Engstrand, Manders’ assertion that Mrs Alving had a duty to keep her son in the
family home, and his remarks that Oswald resembles his father all enable a complex
representation of the family to develop and reveal deeper truths. It is with regard to
the family that Mrs Alving displays her most enlightened attitudes, claiming little
difference in the position of “the fallen”, Johanna and Captain Alving. Oswald
describing the innate love one supposedly has for one’s father as “old superstition”
reflects the truth of his experience.

Where Manders portrays the conventional concreteness of his ideals, Oswald’s use
of illuminating adjectives displays his idealism, “that glorious free life out there…
smeared by this filth”. As an artist, he has, like Ibsen, freedoms to state, value and
enjoy. His condoning of “illicit” relationships shocks Manders, “to think the authorities
tolerate such things”. Oswald occupies an intense sense of self, a stark
consciousness, and it is this that makes the play so shocking, and human. Oswald’s
health is crucial to an understanding of his position within the play. His revelation that
he is ill and will never be able to work again, “like a living death”, illustrates that “the
sins of the fathers are visited upon the children” (137-8), and contrasts with the other
living death represented by the society he now finds himself in. Oswald’s relationship
with Mrs Alving is the most important within the play. While all characters have a role
in displaying the problems with the decaying values of the late-nineteenth century,
they are the only two characters who really question/change their positions and
values within the play. The fire prevents Mrs Alving revealing the truth at the end of
act 2. Her final confession is perhaps more reflective than the earlier one would have
been. Oswald’s father had “plenty of the joy of living”, and both their lives seemed “to
come down to duty in the end”. This is a landmark moment in herself, their
relationship, and the play. By admitting this failure to Oswald, Mrs Alving is
challenging the nature of her marriage, and liberating her son from a lie. The final act
shows both of Captain Alving’s children concerned with their inheritance, Oswald
deliberating his future, Regine chasing Manders after “her” money.

The natural world frames the themes within the play, the rain, gloom and lack of view
contributing to the feeling of stagnation and decay. The continual reference to the “joy
of life” in Oswald and his father counter the bleak surroundings, symbolising
Scandinavia suffering from the failure of intellectual and social enlightenment. By
staging the entire play in two rooms overlooking the mist, Ibsen’s setting allows the
social value system to seem alienated from reality. But Oswald does not disdain
human existence, he accepts that there is genuine joy and life to be lived without the
crippling moral, artistic, and intellectual decay typified by Manders’ morality. It is no
coincidence that Ibsen ends the play with the “prodigal” son monotonously yearning
for “the sun…the sun”, as he bemoans the darkness and his lack of creativity in such
bleak surroundings. Oswald ends the play unable to work because of his debilitating
illness. Ironically as the truth is revealed and he enters his living death, the sun and
light he craves appear. This is highly symbolic of the challenge the truth presents to
conventional intellectual bleakness. It is a problem we continue to face today, albeit in
different circumstances. Helene Alving ends the play refusing to be controlled by the
respectability which drives bourgeois existence. Ibsen’s decision to end the play
before Helene has decided whether to administer morphine to Oswald reinforces this
living death that we all bear some relationship to. Ibsen invites the audience to look
beyond the tragic for a more advanced reading which considers the irony of the
helplessness of the one liberated individual within the play. I, like Ibsen, refuse the
label of tragedy. Ibsen called the play “a domestic drama”. I think that only begins to
touch on the profound sociological, moral, and intellectual questions it posed, and
continues to pose. Oswald’s subsequent fate is less important than what he
personifies, he is the object, the personified human warning against the
consequences of conformity, of his time and ours.

No character is unambiguously moral or immoral, what Ibsen attempted to do was

utilise interactions between a few characters in a confined space to comment on the
contradictions within society and the reactionary elements hindering progress. All
characters are distinct products of their environments, and the individualism and
conformism each represents have their respective flaws, and virtues. Ibsen presents
no concrete solution, he challenges us to reflect on ourselves and our own societies.
It is this universality and extraordinary utilisation of language that I adored when I first
read Ghosts, and continue to adore today.
5. Social moral realism in the play
Unlike A Doll's House, where there are servants and a sub-plot between Krogstad
and Mrs. Linde, only five characters appear in Ghosts. No one is included who has
not a place in the main action itself. In this way, an atmosphere of austere grandeur is
given to the whole drama providing it with an intensity suggestive of classical plays.
Professor Koht describes the play's further relationship to ancient drama for Greek
tragedy, often called the fate, or family drama, shows a tragic flaw inherited through
the generations. Ghosts is also a "family tragedy," he writes, "but it is also a social
drama — the ancient tragedy resurrected on modern soil."

Ghosts is a domestic tragedy play by Henrik Ibsen. This play was written and published
in 1881. However, it was not performed until May 1882 due to controversy towards the
word “Ghosts”. The translator William Archer wanted to use the word “Ghosts”. On the
other hand, the Norwegian “Gengangere” is more exactly translated as “The
Revenants”, which means “The Ones who Return”. From the title itself, this play has
shown its appealing side. Ghosts deserves to be observed and analyzed since it
provides knowledge about life by showing the characters’ perception towards temptation
of the world, happiness, joy of life, and fear, which certainly owned and experienced by
human beings. This play is frequently deemed to be scandalous because it raises topics
related to moral issue, such as having an affair, and having an illegitimate child.
The playwright of Ghosts is Henrik Ibsen, a Norwegian playwright and poet. He is well-
known as a father of Modern Theatre as well as the father of realism, who has affected
other playwrights and novelists such as George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Arthur
Miller, James Joyce, Eugene O’Neill, and Miroslav Krleža. Henrik Ibsen was born on
March 20th 1828 in Skien, Norway. His father, Knud Ibsen, was a rich merchant, while
his mother, Marichen Alternbug, was a daughter of a rich merchant in Skien. During his
childhood, he experienced discouragement. Having a rumor that he was an illegitimate
of another man influences his works. He began his career in the year 1851, when his
first drama, The Burial Mound, was performed. His plays are considered to be
controversial, such as A Doll’s House (1879), Ghosts (1881), and An Enemy of the
People (1882).

This play raises issue related to domestic life. There are several important issues to be
analyzed in this paper. First of all, it will clarify what Ghosts actually means in this
drama, or what the word “Ghosts” refers to. Secondly, it will explain the hidden intention
of Mrs.Alving’s building an orphanage as a memorial of her husband. Thirdly, it will
describe how Mrs.Alving lives with her family, and express the idea of why she sends
her child to another country since he was still seven. Lastly, it will discuss the
playwright’s thought based on some views on the statement expressed by the
characters.

15 marks:

1. Exposition till the appearance of Oswald.

2. Impression of Mrs. Alving and Manders.

3. Why do you think Regina is headstrong?

4. Why does Mrs. Alving scream Ghosts at the end of Act I?

5. Elaborate upon the complication which intensifies when Oswald talks about his
'disease' to his mother.

6. Conclusion analysis.
a ruthless, revelatory sun spills over the scene. An articulate woman, she ends the play
screaming monosyllables: "No. no; no!--Yes!--No; no!," and tearing her hair. Her life of
calm, reasoned arguments is over. Her son Oswald has demanded action – he wants
her to help him kill himself.

Just before his final meltdown, Oswald argues to his mother that common genes don't
necessarily lead to love. It's a hard lesson for his mother to learn. He doesn't love her,
but sees how she can be useful. Oswald asks her to take back the life she gave him: "I
never asked you for life. And what sort of a life have you given me? I will not have it!
You shall take it back again!" (3.245). The mother-child bond is the last ghost Mrs.
Alving may have to give up.

What does she do? Ibsen doesn't tell us. If you were a director making that decision,
what does it mean for the play? Will Mrs. Alving accept her solitude (think about it, she's
all alone in that big, dark house) and kill her son? Is Oswald another "ghost" she has to
get rid of? Will she keep him, nourishing an image of herself as a caregiver? What
happens next? It's quite a cliffhanger and we have to fill in the missing pieces.