Lizzy Lind af Hageby, Emma Goldman and August Strindberg

It is now a century since the death of the Swedish author, dramatist, and painter August Strindberg (1849–1912). Strindberg festivals in Europe, the USA and other countries celebrate the playwright, and in his home country he is praised as a literary genius – the number one modernist of the Swedish language. In Strindberg’s time women lacked full citizenship in the laws of European countries, while the emancipation of women was, in general, regarded as an extreme standpoint. Nevertheless, the struggle of the women’s movement for the right to higher education, the right to all work sectors, and the suffrage, showed more vitality than ever.

Early on, Strindberg was esteemed or detested due to his view of women; it may even be the case that Strindberg has, to some extent, his critical outlook on women to thank for his breakthrough in Europe (Witt-Brattström 282−93). In Europe the foremost (female) appreciator of Strindberg was the German critic and translator of Strindberg, Laura Marholm (Glossman 23−44). In her chapter on Strindberg in the anthology En bok om Strindberg (1894; A book about Strindberg), Marholm rather distances herself from feminists of the day, stating that Strindberg at first wrongly thought her to be “one of those war-seasoned Amazons”; he was however informed “that this was an erroneous idea and there were no further consequences” (Marholm 174). Perhaps Marholm was making a temporary non-violent move; in her studies on Strindberg’s work, she did not abstain from discussing aspects of Strindberg’s misogyny (Brantly; Månesköld-Öberg 75).

Less well known is the fact that August Strindberg was defended by famous contemporary feminists. In 1913, the year after Strindberg’s death, a biographical work on Strindberg was published: August Strindberg: The Spirit of Revolt: Studies and impressions written in English by the Swedish-born, Cheltenham Ladies’ College-educated animal activist, feminist, reformist and speaker, Lizzy Lind af Hageby (1878–1963) (Gålmark Shambles of Science 47). The following year, Emma Goldman (1869–1940), anarchist, feminist and speaker, published her book on modern European drama: The Social Significance of Modern Drama. In her chapter on Strindberg, Goldman praised him as a dramatist.

Why would politically engaged feminists, like Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Emma Goldman, approve of Strindberg – the author who in “Kvinnans rättigheter” in Giftas I (1884; Married, 1913) writes in favour of women’s rights but thereafter declared women to be rightly subordinate inferior beings? What made them admire Strindberg? Their studies are seldom mentioned, although they contributed, each on her own continent, to making August Strindberg part of our global literary heritage.

When Lizzy Lind af Hageby published her title on Strindberg 1913, there were few books about Strindberg on the market, even in Swedish: The anthology En bok om Strindberg and Strindberg’s friend Gustaf Uddgren’s two volumes August Strindberg. Början till en biografi (1909; August Strindberg) and Andra boken om Strindberg (1912; Strindberg the Man, 1920). Translations of Strindberg’s dramas and novels were scarce and his reputation among English literary critics was far from favourable; in English-speaking media, August Strindberg could be characterized as immoral, and even insane: he is at the “edge of madness, ridiculous, grotesque” (Daily Mail, 23 May 1913); his work “connotes a morbid madman, noxious and absurd” (Asian, 31 May 1913); he exhibits a “raging egomania which makes so much of his literature nauseous” (Times Literary Supplement, 15 May 1913); his writings suggest  an “erotic drunken beast” (Globe, 16 May 1913). Lizzy Lind af Hageby, since the turn of the century controversial champion of animal rights, and women’s rights, founder of anti-vivisection organizations and magazines, knew what it meant to be heckled in public. In 1901, together with Leisa Schartau (1876–1962), Lind af Hageby had left Sweden for England to study physiology at the London School of Medicine for Women; at King’s and University Colleges they obtained special permission for women to participate in vivisection classes. Their critical book on their experiences of the laboratories, Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology (1903; Dagboksanteckningar 1905), was met with heated public debates, rallies, demonstrations, and a trial (Börtz; Lansbury; Elston; Ryder; Gålmark Shambles of Science; Kean).

Coral Lansbury has discussed the meanings of this controversy as regards gender, class and animal rights. Poor people, workers, and upper-class women identified with the animals who were used as research material at the hospitals; like animals, lower-class individuals were at risk of being used for scientific purposes (58). Simultaneously, little was done by the ruling classes to rid society of the social causes of common diseases: low pay, long working hours, dangerous working conditions, crowded and unhealthy housing, undernourishment or malnutrition. As for women in Britain, political rights were denied to women of all classes; working women received lower wages than men or no wages at all, and some had to take to seasonal prostitution in order to feed their family; domestic women of the middle and upper classes risked developing mental problems from under-stimulation and economic dependency, not being allowed to work or study for a profession (Fraisse and Perrot; Showalter; Russell 4−26).

Lizzy Lind af Hageby would have agreed with this description of society in general; she and Leisa Schartau agitated for reforms and social equality as the prime remedy against common diseases. From this perspective, the two women were radical also in contemporary issues outside the animal sphere. They belonged to the type of activist who endorsed a holistic view of society, advocating vegetarianism, women’s emancipation, theosophy/spiritism, and socialism – a range of social activism which has been discussed by Lynda Birke, and Leah Leneman.

Lind af Hageby’s work against vivisection as the chief method in medicine emanated from the philosophy she described as neo-vitalism; a body was not only a material entity but also a spiritual one, and this was true, in her opinion, for both animals and humans. Thus, diseases were not only material problems, but entailed psychological and spiritual dimensions (Gålmark Shambles of Science 20−21). She agitated for the notion of a widening of the circle of humanity, an idea which the author and literary critic Henry S. Salt had formulated as humanitarianism, in his book Animals’ Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892/1894; Djurens rättigheter, 1903). Humanitarianism implied the embracing of all sentient beings: humans of all sorts, and animals. In politics, humanitarianism implied the abolition of many institutions: the death penalty, slavery, state-regulated inspection of prostitutes, vivisection; and it meant the promotion of slaughter reform, land reform, prison reform, school reform (no punishment), reform of lunacy treatments; women’s and workers’ rights, constructive medicine, vegetarianism.

Ten years after the controversy over her and Schartau’s book, Lind af Hageby was again trying the law, this time suing a journalist for having written, in the Pall Mall Gazette, that her model displays of vivisection in London ought to be forbidden; she acted as her own defence counsel although women were legally excluded from the domain of jurisprudence. Now she was being honoured in the British press as a modern Portia, the New Woman in excelsis. The Nation wrote on 26 April 1913: “The long trial revealed the most brilliant piece of advocacy that the Bar has known since the day of Russell, though it was entirely conducted by a woman. Women, it appears, may sway courts and judges, but they may not even elect to the High Court of Parliament” (cited in Gålmark Shambles of Science 45−51).

 

 

Surprisingly, Lind af Hageby took on the defence of a fellow countryman famous for his misogyny, especially the type of women she herself represented. Since Lizzy Lind af Hageby’s biography of Strindberg has been overlooked in our time, it seems fair to give it some detailed attention: The book is the first title on Strindberg in English and the first independent Strindberg biography, comprising 370 pages, including illustrations, an index and a list of Strindberg’s works. Lind af Hageby follows Strindberg’s life chronologically, analyses his novels, essays and drama, comparing him to his literary contemporaries; for example, Ibsen, Bjørnson, Hauptmann. The fact that Strindberg is more than his plays is underlined; she especially recommends the novels Röda rummet (1879; The Red Room, 1913) and Hemsöborna (1887; The People at Hemsö, 1959).

Lind af Hageby’s biography aims at being a popular general view, rather than the definitive biography. To a reader of today, the biography’s modernity in style is striking, its modern lucid prose suggesting it to be a product of our time. The book was reviewed at length and by many papers in England, and by the international press, the critics talking about “intellectual honesty” (Daily Chronicle 22 May 1913), “a biographical masterpiece” (Review of Reviews June 1913) “a volume which ranks in the first line of importance in modern literature” (Modern Society 21 June 1913) “a triumph of masterly criticism” (The Commentator 21 May 1913); “a dramatic criticism [that] puts many a professional master to shame” (The Manchester Guardian 30 May 1913); “as unconventional as its subject – neither biography, criticism, nor appreciation – but in its own way it is a little masterpiece of communicated idea” (Lady’s Pictorial 13 Sept. 1913). Others found the book very interesting, but regret the excessively short analyses, the summary form and “a too constant use of scientific language” (Liverpool Post 9 July 1913). Not a few seem to have changed their opinion of Strindberg after having read Lind af Hageby’s biography; The Times and Daily News and Leader stand out as negative, saying that she rates Strindberg too highly.[1]

Lind af Hageby’s book offers a defence of Strindberg: Strindberg did not hold one opinion throughout his life, being a subjective force of nature in constant change, an author who “sows reality but reaps hatred” (August Strindberg 10). Strindberg is the one who falls in between, who says one thing and then changes his opinion; such a person is often perceived as unintelligible and suspected of insanity (233). Her statement on insanity hides a true interest: Lind af Hageby spoke many times about the issues of social psychology and wrote articles on the subject, agitating against the idea of human degeneration and against the policies of eugenics, instead advocating social evolution for humanity, “a spirited bisexuality”, and non-violent treatment for people suffering from lunacy (Psychical Research and Social Evolution; “Sex and Social Evolution” 21).

Actually, insanity was at the time a topic with gender perspectives. Due to lack of citizenship and mental under-stimulation, women in the upper class risked getting ill and being diagnosed as hysterical or mad; the risk of being labelled as a deviant was also present for people in breach of heteronormativity – in Strindberg’s time, misogynistic views could be linked to deviant sexuality. Thus, when Strindberg was stigmatized as insane in the press, it connoted frustrated wild women and non-conformist sexuality, both threatening phenomena for the prevailing patriarchal society (Russell; Showalter 23, 40; Gilbert and Gubar 53−55; Fraunhofer 128−129). It must be noted that, at the time, few authors wrote about bisexuality as openly, albeit negatively, as Strindberg did, in the story of Axel and Maria in the novel En dåres försvarstal (1893; The Confession of a Fool, 1912). In fact, Strindberg’s personal truthfulness implied a disturbing exposure of taboos: Sunday Chronicle on 28 May 1913, for instance, wrote of Strindberg as mentally diseased, “a degenerate no less than genius”, a sort that would best be “sacrificed” under the eugenicist’s hands.

The question of madness had linguistic and creative connotations also. Strindberg described his writing process as being possessed by voices, culminating in ecstasy: “When I have written for a while I have a feeling that I am floating in space. Then it is as if a higher will than my own made the pen glide over the paper, guide it to write down words which seem to me entirely inspired” (Lind af Hageby, August Strindberg 335). Lind af Hageby endorsed the spiritism movement of the time, and in her book she says of Strindberg’s personality: “Whether we use spiritualistic language and call him a medium, or that of psychology and label the messages which reached him a ‘teleological automatism’, there can be no doubt that the keynote of his soul’s gloom and glory was a hypersensitiveness which made him a lightning conductor of his time” (276).

Beyond doubt, Lind af Hageby approved of Strindberg’s literary style. In her book, she holds forth the musicality and vitality of Strindberg’s language, an idiomatic Swedish she thinks is lost in the translations into English. Of his style she writes: “His phrases seem to be innervated, warm-blooded entities […] analyse him with syntax and dictionary, and you will find ‘mistakes’ and startling neology […] but read him as you would listen to a piece of music” (329−330). Linguistic musicality is a subject Lind af Hageby had explored in her book, Lefvande språkundervisning [1905, Living language education] about modern auditory/direct conversation methods when learning foreign languages.

She also discusses and gives examples of technical errors in the translations of Strindberg’s work, asserting that the play Miss Julia (1912; Fröken Julie, 1888) ought rather to be translated as Lady Julie, since the character’s social class is central for the play. At the time when the drama was written, Lind af Hageby states, only unmarried upper-class women in Sweden were called “Fröken”. [2]

According to Lind af Hageby, Strindberg’s dramas are largely unknown in England. In her opinion, it is a pity since Strindberg’s unpleasant but truly honest drama ‘brings life to the stage’. His characters are alive, ‘moving, changing, growing, and shrinking in ceaseless response to the pressure of existence. He is the dramatist of the perpetuum mobile in the modern heart, the interpreter of inexhaustible discontent in himself and others’ (218). In comparison, she contends, most contemporary British drama suffers from lack of oxygen with its ‘costumes’, ‘banalities’ and ‘happy endings’ (203).

But what of Strindberg’s notorious misogyny? Lind af Hageby holds up Strindberg’s progressive suggestions about co-education and citizenship for women in his book Married I (1913; Giftas I, 1884) but notes his negative development. Strindberg, however, “merely made himself a spokesman for what the majority of masculine men feel in regard to intellectual women, even though they may not be capable of expressing it” (347), she writes with caustic pen. She argues against Strindberg’s misogyny in (the preface to) Lady Julie and points out the difficulties in imagining a drama by Strindberg where the tragedy is woven around a Lord Julius’ behaviour instead of a Lady Julie’s: When a man from the upper classes behaves the same way as Lady Julie, no one objects (183).

Lind af Hageby takes the opportunity to criticize pungently the leading opponents of women’s rights in the British debate, stating that Strindberg’s arguments resemble the “psychological and physiological arguments against woman’s suffrage” found in leading articles in The Times (348). In Strindberg’s play Kamraterna (1886; Comrades, 1912) she interprets an expression of “the pessimistic despair of the absolutely sincere anti-feminist” where the main character Bertha is portrayed as a “perverse”, “masculine woman” (188).

In Sweden, Lind of Hageby’s book was somewhat arrogantly reviewed by the male giants of Swedish literary criticism at the time (John Landquist in Dagens Nyheter 7 June 1913 and Gustaf Uddgren in Stockholms Dagblad 28 May 1913), and by the prominent Swedish feminist, journalist and novelist Elin Wägner. Wägner stated in the women’s rights magazine Idun 1 June 1913 that the book was noteworthy: “Såsom den första stora biografien af Strindberg, skrifven af en kvinna, är den med sin varma sympati, sitt från all irritation, fria skärskådande af hans utbrott mot kvinnokönet en liten revanche på den stora anklagaren, en revanche i stil med kvinnornas bästa traditioner.” [As the first major biography of Strindberg, written by a woman, with its warm sympathy and its scrutiny, free from all irritation of his attacks upon the female sex, it is a small revanche attempt to do justice to the great accuser, a revanche attempt in keeping with the best of women’s traditions”.]

A member of the Women’s Freedom League, the Humanitarian League, and founder of the Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society (ADAVS), Lind af Hageby’s broad ethical-political stance and literary interest had gained few followers in Sweden, although Elin Wägner was to develop a pro-nature feminist stance in her book from 1941, Väckarklocka [Alarm Clock]. Lind af Hageby did not seem, however, to vindicate nature per se, she was rather advocating the contemporaneous expanded humanism popular in British radical circles, defending the suffering individual, human or beast. And she was not always radical: in the pamphlet from 1905, Utsäde och skörd [Seed and Harvest] she debated with the Swedish feminist and author Frida Stéenhoff, see Humanitet och barnalstring [Humanity and Propagation], stating that birth control ought not to be the foremost method against social problems. She did take a visionary humanist stance when she wrote in this debate against eugenics being used on humans, a policy which Stéenhoff proposed. [3]

In the USA at the same time, the country’s most famous anarchist, Emma Goldman, had drawn attention to the works of Strindberg. Goldman, an immigrant from Russia (today’s Lithuania), made herself a name as a philosopher and radical public speaker and activist; her exhortation to the starving people is legendary: “Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread” (Abbot 141). As a feminist, Goldman’s focus was on the importance of sexual liberty, working actively for the spread of birth control and contraceptives. Candace Falk has highlighted Goldman’s commitment to drama, and conviction of the theatre’s “crucial role in the political awakening of the country” (Falk 13). The book Goldman published in 1914 was the result of her lecturing tour in the USA with the focus on modern drama and its important social role.

If Lizzy Lind af Hageby’s monograph  may be said to blend critique and matter-of-fact analysis, Emma Goldman’s chapter on Strindberg rather expresses admiration without reservation. Strindberg did not hate women – he loved them, Goldman asserts. In her reading of Fadren (1887; The Father, 1899) this drama provides a realistic portrait of motherhood: it is a reminder of how the child becomes the victim in families where the mother is assumed to be the centre for the child. To Goldman, the father of the child is as important as the mother, and the parents’ assignment is to let the child develop without “imposing upon it one’s own ideas and notions, but in allowing the child freedom and opportunity to grow harmoniously according to its own potentialities, unhampered and unmarred” (Goldman 48-49). The battle between the sexes in Fadren is a result of the puritan restraints of the church and society upon women and men; freely expressed sexuality would erase the differences between the sexes, she writes. The drama Fröken Julie is, moreover, a portrait of “the degrading effects of class distinction and its tragic antagonisms”(60); and in the analysis of the play Kamraterna, Goldman agrees with Strindberg’s hatred against the emancipation-seeking bourgeois woman; she is a “parasite” who wishes to be economically independent but still relies upon her husband’s economic support (64, 67).

Without any doubt, Goldman the anarchist-feminist put class struggle before women’s rights. She had nothing but contempt for women who sought women’s suffrage, but not people’s suffrage, women who were in pursuit of freedom for some women but not for the people. This priority explains her passion for Strindberg the radical, not only dealing with class issues in his plays, but also writing, for instance, the socially critical novel The Red Room, the anarchistic or small-scale socialistic Utopier i verkligheten (1885; Real Utopias) and the socialistic Lilla katekes för underklassen (1913; Little Catechism for the Underclass). [4] Goldman’s class focus also explains her blindness to, or even agreement with, Strindberg in his misogyny in Fadren, Fröken Julie and Kamraterna (especially the prefaces). In her analysis, Goldman shows resentment for upper-class women who avoided seeking revolutionary change and for working-class women who made the same mistake. Of the obedient Christian believer, the character Kristin in Fröken Julie, Goldman writes: “The Kristin’s represent the greatest obstacles to social growth, the deadlock in the conflict between the classes” (Goldman 1914:57).

With regard to Goldman’s analysis of the play Fadren a reader of today must acknowledge the modernity of Goldman’s advocacy of children’s rights. Simultaneously, one must note that she probably did not know of the essay (or manifesto) Kvinnans underlägsenhet [The Inferiority of Woman], a gender-biological essay of Strindberg’s with scarcely any counterpart in his time.[5] On the other hand, Lind af Hageby had certainly read Strindberg’s text as she mentions Strindberg’s reasoning in her book, stating that the argument “bears the imprint of petulance rather than research.” She cites as an example the passage in the text where Strindberg heckles women for ignorance of how to handle musical instruments or how to make tasty coffee. In Lind af Hageby’s opinion, Strindberg’s rather embarrassing hatred stemmed from his personal amorous debacles (347).

 

 

How then do we explain the fact that Lind af Hageby and Emma Goldman became fans of August Strindberg? First of all, Strindberg was a rebel; in Lind af Hageby’s words Strindberg was a rebellious spirit, often inconveniently changing standpoints; very much like Lind af Hageby and Goldman, he was a person in conflict with dominant society’s values, even to the point of transgressing the law: Goldman spent time in prison, Lind af Hageby was on trial for her book Shambles of Science, Strindberg was prosecuted for his book Giftas I. In questioning the social norms, and generally the unequal social conditions of the prevailing culture, Lind af Hageby and Goldman shared the outsider position of Strindberg. In his contribution to the expansion of public speech, making it possible to talk and write more freely on social and sexual issues, Strindberg was indeed on their respective sides.

However, these taking sides had deeper implications and perhaps unexpected consequences. For both Goldman and Lind af Hageby, freedom of expression constituted an absolute essential for the survival of society. Emma Goldman agitated for, and exercised, this civil liberty to achieve social change; she was in fact convicted for promoting birth control at her public meetings (Goldman 134−143; Falk 12−13). While Emma Goldman lived for the goal of social revolution, Lind af Hageby advocated what she called “social evolution”, a Hegelian-inspired concept: opposing social forces should engage in the exchange and battle of ideas, whereby societal changes would come about (“Sex and Social Evolution”). From Lind af Hageby’s perspective, when Strindberg expressed what many anti-feminists in Sweden felt, but did not have the intellectual capacity to express, he in effect offered a possibility for feminists to counterattack, and, eventually, win economic and political rights for women.

Whether August Strindberg unintentionally played this role of useful idiot in Europe is doubtful; in England, the anti-feminists were more outspoken and, as Lind af Hageby remarked in her Strindberg book, possessed the financial and discursive power to express their sentiments in the press. The efforts by some British critics to denigrate the misogynist Strindberg with arguments of immorality and presumed insanity must have been deeply disliked by both Lind af Hageby and Goldman. The constraint of artistic freedom meant the constraint of fundamental human needs, according to Goldman; stopping artistic expression of the common hatred against women risked muzzling the debate and thereby reducing the chances to achieve societal change, according to the thinking of Lind af Hageby.

Conceived in this way, Strindberg breaks with the informal male homosocial order, openly stating what should have been secretly understood, thereby making conventional values subject to debate – and disdain. In fact, by unveiling his own contempt for women, Strindberg brutally revealed his own society’s contempt for women. He also revealed his and his society’s fear of upcoming women, and the fear of the change in gender-power relations that was under way.

Although the intrigues of Strindberg’s plays seem to be solidly on the men’s side, defending the patriarchal structure that was under attack from the new women of the day, Strindberg as a dramatist and novelist portrays strong modern women: Laura in the play Fadren, Julie in the play Fröken Julie, Bertha in the play Kamraterna, Tekla in Fordringsägare (1890; Creditors, 1913) are such protagonists. In Strindberg’s plays, people like Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Emma Goldman, could, as they perceived it, for the first time in the theatre, watch characters like themselves battling familiar existential and social dilemmas.

They could also recognize a more truthful picture of men. Strindberg’s male characters show themselves as human beings struggling unsuccessfully to hold on to the socially constructed male gender role. Anna Westerståhl Stenport says that Strindberg reveals the paradoxes in the gender structure (Cavallin and Westerståhl Stenport 7−16), while Eszter Szalczer points to the fact that Strindberg’s texts convey his shock at the dissolution of conventional masculine identity, (103−123), a reaction to a cultural crisis following upon the demands from the women’s movement. Christopher Joseph Mitchell even suggests that Strindberg’s hatred of women is a myth: Strindberg anticipates the coming feminist debate by contradicting and dissolving the contemporary gender stereotypes of powerful evil men, and powerless ethical women. To Mitchell, Strindberg is a “radical feminist” (Mitchell 217). Emma Goldman most probably would have endorsed Mitchell’s suggestion: in Goldman’s words, Strindberg is rather “laying bare the human soul behind the mask of social tradition and class culture” (Goldman 60−61).

It is indeed true that Strindberg’s drama does not always display as much misogyny as his prefaces and manifestos suggest. Also, Strindberg appealed as an innovative dramatist, at times employing a non-linear circular dramaturgy that some have called a feminine dramaturgy, with constantly changing characters, as if seen through a kaleidoscope (Elers-Jarleman 75). In spite of the differences between Lind af Hageby and Goldman’s analyses of Strindberg’s work, on freedom of thought and appreciation of openness and honesty, they seem most related to each other, and to Strindberg. As social dissidents and transgressors, both Lind af Hageby and Goldman embraced Strindberg’s crossing of genres, the modernity of focus, dramaturgy, language and the self-examining and self-revealing character of his works. Art, in both Lind af Hageby and Goldman’s opinion, and much like Strindberg’s, should mirror life and society’s complex battles; art should be that free domain for human self-expression and self-realization (Lind af Hageby, August Strindberg 203; Goldman 1).

Moreover, Lind af Hageby and Goldman, both in their own way, and Lind af Hageby perhaps more than Goldman, represented a feminism that may have been somewhat in contradiction to the mainstream feminism of the day: it distinguished between sex and gender/sex roles and attempted to situate sex roles in relation to class, and suggested that it was most important to perceive oneself first and foremost as a human being, rather than as an individual belonging to the category “woman”. There is of course an analogy here with regard to the category “man”. In the words of the Swedish director Agneta Elers-Jarleman, and perhaps much like the character Adolf in Strindberg’s play Fordringsägare, Strindberg was the discomfited male, struggling with a contemporary gender role that fitted him so badly (Persson and Lide 72).

In summary, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Emma Goldman heartily embraced Strindberg’s attacks on contemporary conventionality. They appreciated the exposure of the sex roles of the time, the unveiling of sexuality in general, and the revealing of the hypocrisy of general opinion. In their generally critical view of verbal taboos, they and Strindberg were indeed in the same league. In their support of his work, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Emma Goldman placed Strindberg among the daring and the slandered, not as a man or a woman, but as a creative human being. Perhaps it was this feminist act of equality that would provoke posterity and cause their achievements to be overlooked.

A short version of this text was published, in Swedish, in Tidningen Kulturen 7 May 2012, and a full version was published, also in Swedish: Gålmark, Lisa. ”The Spirit of Revolt”, Lizzy Lind af Hageby, Emma Goldman and August Strindberg, Strindbergiana, vol 29, Stockholm: Atlantis, 2014, 37−58.

WORKS CITED

Abbot, Leonard. D. “Reflections on Emma Goldman’s trial in Mother Earth.” 9.3 (1916). Rpt. in Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth. Ed. Peter Glassgold. New York: Counterpoint, 2000. 140−143.

Birke, Lynda. “Supporting the Underdog: Feminism, Animal Rights and Citizenship in the Work of Alice Morgan Wright and Edith Goode.” Women’s History Review 9.4 (2000): 693−719.

Brantly, Susan. The Life and Writings of Laura Marholm, Basel and Frankfurt Am Main: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 1991.

Börtz, Johan and Börtz, Ellen. Nordiska Samfundet mot Plågsamma Djurförsök 1882−1982. Stockholm: Zindermans, 1982.

Elers-Jarleman, Agneta. ”Varför Strindberg?” Ja, må han leva!: 22 kvinnor om August Strindberg. Eds. Anita Persson, and Barbara Lide. Stockholm: Carlssons, 2001. 71−82.

Elston, Mary A. “Women and Anti-Vivisection” Vivisection in Historical Perspective. Ed. Nicholas Rupke. London: Routledge, 1987. 259−294.

Fraisse, Geneviève, and Michelle Perrot, eds. A History of Women in the West: Emerging Feminism from Revolution to World War. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993.

Falk, Candace. “Emma Goldman, Passion, Politics, and the Theatrics of Free Expression.” Women’s History Review 11.1 (2002): 11−26.

Fraunhofer, Hedwig. ”Kön och sexuella normer i Fordringsägare.” Det gäckande könet: Strindberg och genusteori. Eds. Anna Cavallin, and Anna Westerståhl Stenport. Stockholm: Symposion, 2006.125−150.

Gilber, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Glossmann, Erik. “Die Apollebrüder am Musenhof: Ein Versuch über Künstler und Überlebenskünstler – Ola Hansson, August Strindberg und der ‘Friedrichshagener Dichterkreis’ 1892/93.” August Strindberg: Der Dichter und die Medien. Eds. Walter Baumgartner, and Thomas Fechner-Smarsly. München: Walter Fink Verlag, 2003. 23−44.

Goldman, Emma. The Social Significance of Modern Drama. Boston: The Gorham Press, 1914. Project Runeberg. Web. 6 Dec.  2006. 43−68.

____. “The Social Aspects of Birth Control” 9.2 (1916) Rpt in Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth. Ed. Peter Glassgold. New York: Counterpoint, 2000. 134−140.

Gålmark, Lisa. Shambles of Science: Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Leisa Schartau, antivivisektionister 1900−1913/14. Stockholm: Stockholm University/Federativ, 1996.

____. “Women anti-vivisectionists: the story of Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Leisa Schartau” Animal Issues 4.2 (2000): 1−32.

Kean, Hilda. Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800. London: Reaktion Books, 1998.

Landquist, John, ed. Strindbergs samlade verk 1−55. Stockholm: Bonnier, 1912−21.

Lansbury, Carol. The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers and Vivisection in Edwardian England. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Leneman, Leah. “The Awakened Instinct: Vegetarianism and the Women’s Movement in Britain”. Women’s History Review 6.2 (1997): 271−287.

Lind af Hageby, Lizzy, and Leisa Schartau. The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology. 5^th ed. London: The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society, 1903.

Lind af Hageby, Lizzy. Lefvande språkundervisning: En framställning av Francois Gouins metod samt en tillämpning och utveckling av densamma för engelska språkets praktiska undervisning i skola och hem. Stockholm: Norstedts, 1905.

____. ”Utsäde och skörd: protest mot Frida Stéenhoffs broschyr Humanitet och barnalstring”. Stockholm: utgifven av Kvinnokommittén af den 5:e februari, 1905.

____. August Strindberg: The Spirit of Revolt: Studies and Impressions. New York: Appleton & Company, 1913.

____. Psychical Research and Social Evolution: An Address Given at the International Club for Psychical Research. London: John Lewis & Co, 1913.

____. “Sex and Social Evolution. Lectures: Problems of the Women’s Movement: A Series of Four Lectures by Miss Lind af Hageby.” 5 February 1 (1914).

Marholm, Laura. “August Strindberg.” Drachmann, Holger et al. En bok om Strindberg. Stockholm: Nordin & Josephson, 1894.

Mitchell, Christopher. J. “Radikalfeministen Strindberg.” Det gäckande könet: Strindberg och genusteori. Eds. Anna Cavallin, and Anna Westerståhl Stenport. Stockholm: Symposion, 2006. 217−232.

Månesköld-Öberg, Inger. Att spegla tiden – eller forma den. Ola Hanssons introduktion av nordisk litteratur i Tyskland 1889–1895. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 1984. 75.

Russell, Denise. Women, Madness and Medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.

Ryder, Richard. D. Animal Revolution. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.

Salt, Henry S. Animal Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress. London: George Bell & Sons, 1892.

____. Djurens rättigheter i belysning af det sociala framåtskridandet/ Öfvers. från engelskan af Julie Blomqvist. Stockholm: G. Walfrid Wilhelmssons förlag, 1903.

Showalter, Elaine. Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siècle. London: Virago, 1999.

Stéenhoff, Frida. ”Humanitet och barnalstring: föredrag”, 1905.

Strindberg, August. ”Kvinnans rättigheter”. Giftas: Äktenskapshistorier I−II Ed. Ulf Boëthius. Samlade verk 16. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1986. 24−27.

____. Married. Stories of Married Life: Also the Tragi-Comedy, Creditors. Trans. Ellie Schleussner. London: F. Palmer, 1913.

____. The Confession of a Fool. Trans. Ellie Schleussner. London, 1912.

____. Miss Julia: with the author’s preface. Trans. Edwin Björkman, London, 1912.

____. Fröken Julie; Mäster Olof; Fadren; Ett drömspel. Stockholm: Bonnier, 1962.

____. The Father (a tragedy). Trans. N. Erichsen. London, 1899.

____. ”Fordringsegare: tragi-komedi”. Tryckt och otryckt 1 (1890).

____. Kamraterna: Komedi i fyra akter. Helsingborg: H. Österlings förlag, 1888.

____. ”Kvinnans underlägsenhet under mannen, och det på grund därav berättigade i hennes underordnade ställning.” Tryckt och otryckt 1 (1890) 219−245.

____. Röda rummet: Skildringar ur artist- och författarlivet. Stockholm: Seligmann, 1879.

____. The Red Room. Trans. Ellie Schleussner. London, 1913.

____. Hemsöborna: Skärgårdsberättelse. Stockholm: Bonnier, 1887.

____. The People of Hemsö. Trans. Elspeth Harley Schubert. Stockholm: Bonnier, 1959.

____. ”August Strindbergs Lilla katekes för underklassen”. Samlade skrifter av August Strindberg. Ed. John Landquist. Likt och olikt 16 (1913) 175−240. Project Runeberg Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

____. Utopier i verkligheten: Fyra berättelser. Ed. Sven-Gustaf Edqvist. Samlade verk 19. Stockholm: Norstedts, 1990.

Szalczer, Ester. ”Strindbergs fader och döttrar och de Andras röster.” Det gäckande könet: Strindberg och genusteori. Eds. Anna Cavallin, and Anna Westerståhl Stenport. Stockholm: Symposion, 2006.

Uddgren, Gustaf. Boken om Strindberg: August Strindberg: Början till en biografi. Göteborg: Åhlén & Åkerlund, 1909.

____. Andra boken om Strindberg. Göteborg: Åhlén och Åkerlund, 1912.

____. Strindberg the Man. Trans. Axel Johan Uppwall. Boston, 1920.

Westerståhl Stenport, Anna. ”Från kvinnohat till maskulinitetskris. Strindberg som genuskonstruktion.” Det gäckande könet: Strindberg och genusteori. Eds. Anna Cavallin, and Anna Westerståhl Stenport. Stockholm: Symposion, 2006.

Witt-Brattström, Ebba. ”Könskampens store diktare” Om Strindberg. Ed. Lena Einhorn. Stockholm: Bonnier, 2010. 282–293.

Wägner, Elin. Väckarklocka. Stockholm: Bonnier, 1941.

Notes

[1] Lind af Hageby, L. Collection of 53 presscuttings; reviews in English of August Strindberg, The Spirit of Revolt. The Swedish National Archives, Stockholm.

[2] Lind af Hageby continued to discuss, and prove faults in, translations of Strindberg: Lind af Hageby, Lizzy, “‘August Strindberg.’ 224, Lauderdale Mansions, W., June 17, 1913 ”Athenaeum magazine 28 June. 1913; Copy of letter sent by Miss Lind-af-Hageby to Baron Palmstierna, 14 February 1928.

[3] Lind af Hageby was the secretary of the “Swedish Women’s committee to abolish the laws that force female prostitutes to be inspected”, and it was this committee which published Lind af Hageby’s protest.

[4] Strindberg wrote the last mentioned book 1884 or 1885, but it wasn’t printed in Swedish until after his death, in John Landquist 16 (1912-21).

[5] Strindberg’s text was written in French in 1888, and later on printed in Swedish, in the collection Tryckt och otryckt I (1890). The text was not available in English.

© Arimneste Anima Museum # 13