What do you think?
Rate this book
Μνηστήρες του θρόνου
Οι "Μνηστήρες του θρόνου", γράφτηκαν στα 1864, όταν ο Ίψεν ήταν 35 ετών και οι πνευματικές του δυνάμεις βρίσκονταν σχεδόν στην πλήρη ανάπτυξή τους.
Το έργο αυτό, που υπήρξε και η πρώτη μεγάλη επιτυχία του Ίψεν, το έγραψε, όταν ακόμη βρισκόταν στη Χριστιανία, πριν δηλαδή από τη μακρόχρονη αυτοεξορία του από την Νορβηγία.
Λίγα χρόνια πρωτύτερα, ένοιωσε μια κάποια έλξη για το ιστορικό αυτό θέμα, τη διαμάχη δηλαδή ανάμεσα στον Χάκωνα και στον Σκουλ. Κι όμως ο ανταγωνισμός του Χάκωνα - Σκούλ, αντικατοπτρίζει το δικό του δράμα· η σκληρή υποδοχή των συμπατριωτών του προς το τελευταίο του έργο "LOVE'S COMEDY" καθώς και η παντελής έλλειψη απήχησης προς το κοινό, σε σύγκριση με την ολοένα αυξάνουσα δημοτικότητα του φίλου και αντιζήλου του Μπγιόρσον, ο οποίος γνώριζε τη μια επιτυχία μετά την άλλη ήρεμα και με απόλυτη αυτοπεποίθηση, που ήταν και το μυστικό της επιτυχίας του, τον έκαναν να νοιώσει τη διαμάχη αυτή και να την παρουσιάσει τόσο ζωντανά στους "Μνηστήρες του θρόνου".
Το έργο αυτό, που υπήρξε και η πρώτη μεγάλη επιτυχία του Ίψεν, το έγραψε, όταν ακόμη βρισκόταν στη Χριστιανία, πριν δηλαδή από τη μακρόχρονη αυτοεξορία του από την Νορβηγία.
Λίγα χρόνια πρωτύτερα, ένοιωσε μια κάποια έλξη για το ιστορικό αυτό θέμα, τη διαμάχη δηλαδή ανάμεσα στον Χάκωνα και στον Σκουλ. Κι όμως ο ανταγωνισμός του Χάκωνα - Σκούλ, αντικατοπτρίζει το δικό του δράμα· η σκληρή υποδοχή των συμπατριωτών του προς το τελευταίο του έργο "LOVE'S COMEDY" καθώς και η παντελής έλλειψη απήχησης προς το κοινό, σε σύγκριση με την ολοένα αυξάνουσα δημοτικότητα του φίλου και αντιζήλου του Μπγιόρσον, ο οποίος γνώριζε τη μια επιτυχία μετά την άλλη ήρεμα και με απόλυτη αυτοπεποίθηση, που ήταν και το μυστικό της επιτυχίας του, τον έκαναν να νοιώσει τη διαμάχη αυτή και να την παρουσιάσει τόσο ζωντανά στους "Μνηστήρες του θρόνου".
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1864
5 people are currently reading
124 people want to read
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,266 books2,111 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 24, 2021
My least favourite play by Henrik Ibsen at the moment. Didn't get invested in it and feelt painfully boring.
February 3, 2025
Leste en skoleutgave fra 1920 med notater fra hundre år siden! Utgaven jeg hadde var slikt sett mye mer spennende enn selve innholdet i boka, som er en ganske standard saga-historie, ispedd litt bejublende nasjonalisme. Ibsen kan bedre.
January 16, 2026
Δεν το γνώριζα αυτό το θαυμάσιο έργο του Ιψεν.
Αν και ήταν ηχητικό βιβλίο, ήταν καταπλητική η πλοκή του έργου.
Αν και ήταν ηχητικό βιβλίο, ήταν καταπλητική η πλοκή του έργου.
June 27, 2024
Read this for my Nordic Book Club. They group wants to do one Ibsen play a year and this was the year for The Pretender. A Norwegian woman says Pretender is no a great translation for the concept of, someone who has the potential to be something, but better choice is present. This in terms of who will be the next legitimate king of Norway.
I found the play online and listened to a BBC version on You Tube. They were different from each other in terms of translations.
This was like a Norwegian “Macbeth” but even Macbeth is Danish. The play was written in the 1700s about King Haakon of the 1200s! It was okay. I was surprised to hear that there is a ski race in Norway that commemorates the path that skiers took to take baby Haakon away from those trying to kill him. It’s a shame the race doesn’t require skiers to carry babies or a sack of potatoes or something.
I found the play online and listened to a BBC version on You Tube. They were different from each other in terms of translations.
This was like a Norwegian “Macbeth” but even Macbeth is Danish. The play was written in the 1700s about King Haakon of the 1200s! It was okay. I was surprised to hear that there is a ski race in Norway that commemorates the path that skiers took to take baby Haakon away from those trying to kill him. It’s a shame the race doesn’t require skiers to carry babies or a sack of potatoes or something.
January 29, 2022
This was a very good story! Two honorable mean vying for the position of King, but one of them secretly does not feel worthy. Skule can tell that Hakon actually deserves the position more, but is convinced to drag the country into bloody civil war through the machinations of Bishop Nicholas, who seems to want to keep the country divided rather than see either man consolidate power. If we dismiss the final appearance of the Bishop (as an agent of the devil) as just a dream, then the only thing that slightly spoils an otherwise great story is the rather pat ending.
November 4, 2020
3 1/2 stars
I enjoyed this one, and you could definitely feel tension and importance of certain moments of the play, I was missing the tug on my heart that I usually get when reading Ibsen plays. I also found some of it confusing. I think this can happen with having not as much context given it's a historical play. Would love to re-read it at some point and sink into the story again.
I enjoyed this one, and you could definitely feel tension and importance of certain moments of the play, I was missing the tug on my heart that I usually get when reading Ibsen plays. I also found some of it confusing. I think this can happen with having not as much context given it's a historical play. Would love to re-read it at some point and sink into the story again.
July 14, 2025
«Skaldskab læres ikke, herre.
Jeg fik sorgens gave og så var jeg skald.»
Jeg fik sorgens gave og så var jeg skald.»
July 9, 2014
Ibsen's ninth play can be seen in retrospect (and perhaps even at the time) as a watershed in his work. Certainly, it fitted into the pattern of Ibsen's plays at the time, where he alternated between light fantasies and historical works, often based around Norwegian national events.
However, this was a watershed in a number of ways. It was to be the last of Ibsen's historical national dramas. This may have been because it was also Ibsen's first epic play, ushering in a new phase of ambitious large-scale works, before Ibsen returned to smaller-scale dramas again.
However, one reason why Ibsen may have abandoned this particular genre is that this is Ibsen's first masterpiece, and perhaps he felt that he had taken the historical national drama as far as he could go. Indeed, Ibsen only wrote one more historical play. Everything else he went on to write had a contemporary setting.
One of the more peculiar watersheds though is that this was Ibsen's first truly popular drama, and it made his name as a writer. This is curious, because the subject matter is about failure, and it could even be seen as Ibsen's first obliquely autobiographical work.
The story concerns Earl Skule, later Duke Skule, and his rivalry for the Norwegian crown with Haakon. Skule feels that the throne should rightly be his due to all the hard work he has put in to running Norway during Haakon's childhood. Haakon, on the other hand, believes in his divine right to rule.
It has been suggested that this conflict reflects Ibsen's relationship with another playwright, Bjoernson. Ibsen at the time was overshadowed as a writer by the fame of Bjoernsen, who was a national hero, and the relationship between the two pretenders to the crown could be seen as echoing this relationship.
Ibsen's best translator and biographer, Michael Meyer, goes so far as to call it the rivalry for a 'potentially lesser man'. Personally, I feel this is a stretch that would present Ibsen as being more arrogant than is in evidence in the play. After all, Ibsen had not produced a masterpiece at this stage in his career, and would have had no reason to view himself as being the better man.
Similarly in the play, it is not certain that Skule is the better man for the throne. He is weak and vacillating, tormented by doubts about the rightness of his position. By contrast, Haaakon is fearless and utterly convinced of the rightness of his claim. He also has a powerful vision that Skule lacks, seeking to one day unite the disparate factions to make Norway stronger.
The play is fascinatingly complex and takes time to explore the psychology of the lead characters. However, even the supporting characters have important parts. The presence of Peter, a son for Skule who mysteriously appears in the later part of the play, may seem tacked on. However, there is something fascinating about watching the idealistic son becoming corrupted by his father's ideal. Jatgeir the poet also catches our attention with his chameleon personality hiding a little darker cynicism.
Perhaps the most fascinating grotesque is Bishop Nicholas, another would-be pretender for the throne, who has chosen the church instead of secular power, after discovering that he is too cowardly to be a fighter. This embittered and nasty man serves as a dark tempter and corrupter, an embodiment of all the worst instincts of our heroes, and drags Norway down into the conflict that will prove so devastating.
Overall, the play still has a few creaky contrivances, but for the main part is gripping, and has a pleasing variety of scenes and moods that retain the interest of the reader/audience. Just at the point where Ibsen was beginning to voice his dismay about his unsuccessful writing career, he finally made the breakthrough that would cause him to overtop all his rivals.
However, this was a watershed in a number of ways. It was to be the last of Ibsen's historical national dramas. This may have been because it was also Ibsen's first epic play, ushering in a new phase of ambitious large-scale works, before Ibsen returned to smaller-scale dramas again.
However, one reason why Ibsen may have abandoned this particular genre is that this is Ibsen's first masterpiece, and perhaps he felt that he had taken the historical national drama as far as he could go. Indeed, Ibsen only wrote one more historical play. Everything else he went on to write had a contemporary setting.
One of the more peculiar watersheds though is that this was Ibsen's first truly popular drama, and it made his name as a writer. This is curious, because the subject matter is about failure, and it could even be seen as Ibsen's first obliquely autobiographical work.
The story concerns Earl Skule, later Duke Skule, and his rivalry for the Norwegian crown with Haakon. Skule feels that the throne should rightly be his due to all the hard work he has put in to running Norway during Haakon's childhood. Haakon, on the other hand, believes in his divine right to rule.
It has been suggested that this conflict reflects Ibsen's relationship with another playwright, Bjoernson. Ibsen at the time was overshadowed as a writer by the fame of Bjoernsen, who was a national hero, and the relationship between the two pretenders to the crown could be seen as echoing this relationship.
Ibsen's best translator and biographer, Michael Meyer, goes so far as to call it the rivalry for a 'potentially lesser man'. Personally, I feel this is a stretch that would present Ibsen as being more arrogant than is in evidence in the play. After all, Ibsen had not produced a masterpiece at this stage in his career, and would have had no reason to view himself as being the better man.
Similarly in the play, it is not certain that Skule is the better man for the throne. He is weak and vacillating, tormented by doubts about the rightness of his position. By contrast, Haaakon is fearless and utterly convinced of the rightness of his claim. He also has a powerful vision that Skule lacks, seeking to one day unite the disparate factions to make Norway stronger.
The play is fascinatingly complex and takes time to explore the psychology of the lead characters. However, even the supporting characters have important parts. The presence of Peter, a son for Skule who mysteriously appears in the later part of the play, may seem tacked on. However, there is something fascinating about watching the idealistic son becoming corrupted by his father's ideal. Jatgeir the poet also catches our attention with his chameleon personality hiding a little darker cynicism.
Perhaps the most fascinating grotesque is Bishop Nicholas, another would-be pretender for the throne, who has chosen the church instead of secular power, after discovering that he is too cowardly to be a fighter. This embittered and nasty man serves as a dark tempter and corrupter, an embodiment of all the worst instincts of our heroes, and drags Norway down into the conflict that will prove so devastating.
Overall, the play still has a few creaky contrivances, but for the main part is gripping, and has a pleasing variety of scenes and moods that retain the interest of the reader/audience. Just at the point where Ibsen was beginning to voice his dismay about his unsuccessful writing career, he finally made the breakthrough that would cause him to overtop all his rivals.
January 5, 2025
Loved it! Lots of hilarious moments, like Nicolas asking for the right to sin a little more despite having all his sins forgiven after being given his final oil, and Sira saying they better give him 14 prayers rather than 7. And how his manipulation is affecting the play until the final act. And Jatgeir recommending Skule gets a dog when he describes his ideal woman, while complaining about his wife and daughter. Only for Skule to ask him to be his dog. And the irony of Ingebjorgs only wish for giving up her son being for her son to be saved and not sin, but then he literally robs a church. And Skule comparing himself to a barren woman, because he’s so obsessed with the idea of Håkon’s kingdom. Certainly the best one he had written yet
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 12, 2011
Reminiscent of Shakespeare’s RICHARD II, this is the story of relatives fighting for the throne of Norway. Ibsen's distrust of Christianity comes through clearly as he explores what it means for a ruler to be god’s ordained. This work is hard-hitting, compassionate, and humane as it looks at people doing what they think is right or (in some cases) know is wrong, only for the strongest man to win in the end. This is a brilliant play.
July 31, 2023
63 i 2023:
Dette er jo et skuespill, så litt rart å lese. Men, når sjefen kommer med en leseanbefaling er det greit å teste ut.
Det ga meg ikke så mye å lese dette, men litt interessant å lese en gammel klassiker. (som tydeligvis også er pensum på statsvitenskap (?)
Det mest overraskende var at også er litt humor med i dette skuespillet....
Dette er jo et skuespill, så litt rart å lese. Men, når sjefen kommer med en leseanbefaling er det greit å teste ut.
Det ga meg ikke så mye å lese dette, men litt interessant å lese en gammel klassiker. (som tydeligvis også er pensum på statsvitenskap (?)
Det mest overraskende var at også er litt humor med i dette skuespillet....
June 13, 2014
The plot is based on historic occurrences. When the story finally gets going it is well paced, exiting and with some very fine dialogues. The plays strength lies in the psychological drama of earl Skule who wishes to take power from king Håkon.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews