Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka hur Frida Stéenhoff använder stilfigurerna metafor, liknelse och metonymi i sitt debutdrama, Lejonets unge. Utgångspunkten är föreställningen om att de ersättande stilfigurerna används vid tabubelagda ämnen och genom att göra en diskursanalys vill jag se om det stämmer. Jag definierar de olika stilfigurerna efter Per Lagerholms definition i Stilistik och tar i diskursanalysen även hänsyn till hur 1890-talet var historiskt och kulturellt, dramats fiktiva verklighet och de olika karaktärernas värderingar. Resultatet presenteras i form av analyser av sju utvalda scener. Analyserna visar att Stéenhoff använder en mängd metaforer, liknelser och metonymier i Lejonets unge. Hon låter dock sällan publiken själv tolka innebörden av stilfigurerna. I stället är det karaktärerna i dramat som oftast reder ut de ersättande uttrycken. Tabubelagda ämnen presenteras i ersättande uttryck men klargörs genom dramats gång, då Stéenhoff inte låter publiken missförstå dramat.

Literary descriptions of shifting from and transgressing assigned sex were common in 19th Century Sweden. This thesis forms a contribution to the larger project of writing a history of Swedish trans literature, and develops new interpretations of certain works of fiction by applying a transgender studies perspective. Through trans readings the thesis also examines what potential and possible implications literature might have for trans people beyond the literary realm. Trans readings are able to supplement earlier research by providing a nuanced understanding of the production of trans- and cisgenders. The theoretical perspectives used in the thesis are drawn for the most part from queer and transgender studies. The thesis adopts a conceptual understanding of trans as a movement, and aims to widen the scope of what may be considered relevant to a history of trans literature. The primary objects of analysis are the 1833 autobiography of widely known thief and cross-dresser Lasse-Maja (Lars Molin), C.J.L. Almqvist’s Drottningens juvelsmycke (1834), and Aurora Ljungstedt’s Moderna typer (1874). In closing, two texts from the fin-de-siècle are also closely read; Amanda Kerfstedt’s Reflexer (1901) and Frida Stéenhoff’s “Ett sällsamt öde” (1911). A wide range of other fiction is additionally studied in order to establish a contextual pattern of trans literary traditions. The thesis demonstrates that trans permeates all kinds of fiction, and that the characters analysed construct both trans and cis gender categories. It concludes that trans is done in a variety of ways, and with a variety of meanings in 19th and early 20th century literature. Trans is often depicted as a positive, fruitful and desirable act, through trans characters who are both themselves subjects of erotic desire and who become symbols of liberty and emancipation. Other trans figures however are often counter images of what are considered to be correct sexes, and are depicted as threatening and/or ridiculous. Both these negative and positive representations of trans affirm the gender binary. At the same time, they also break and destabilize that same binary, and the trans characters in the study both can and cannot be interpreted as transgressing cis- and heteronormativity respectively.

<p>Anne Charlotte Leffler, Victoria Benedictsson and Frida Stéenhoff were all part of the Modern Breakthrough in Swedish literature. By utilizing Jürgen Habermas theoretical works on communicative action, and Nancy Fraser’s supplementary reading of his theory, this essay makes clear that the authors’ struggle for an understanding and a rethinking of social norms in their plays <em>Skådespelerskan </em>(1873), <em>Romeos Julia </em>(1888) and <em>Lejonets unge </em>(1896) can be read as a contribution to the public debate. Dialogue has a key function for female authors during the Modern Breakthrough. Women and mens’ possibilities to take part in conversation and argument as equals, requires the professional woman’s transgression and access to the privileges of both public (State) administration – “system”, and world of everyday life – “lifeworld”. As oppositional authors, Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff took advantage of the literary public domain, in this case the theatre. The theatre as public sphere had a more effective capacity to affect its audience than fiction. The plays were written and staged in a cultural period that, compared with the present one, in a greater sense influenced public opinion. The theatre was a powerful part of the public debate, and this debate involved parties from both on-stage and off-stage positions.</p><p>At the theatre Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff turned the private into politics. Their powerful contribution to the public debate were directed specifically towards the bourgeois audience. They carried on a controversy concerning the notion of the bourgeois family by showing scenarios that raised objection to its idealistic point of view. The bourgeois living room was exposed on stage. Conflicts related to the private sphere were brought up as a theme in a public sphere and by so means were incorporated into the public debate, which at that time was dominated by men. The plays mirrored the audience and the authors’ strategies were based upon the remodeling power inherent in conversation and argumentation. Thereby, the audience were confronted with an alternated reflection of themselves. This reflection should be read as a problematic representation of the writing of history. The alternate mirroring brought in itself forward an argument that emphasized why a new reflection was necessary.</p><p><em>Skådespelerskan</em>, <em>Romeos Julia </em>and <em>Lejonets unge</em> examine female artists in a bourgeois environment. Through the artist the structures that maintain bourgeois ideals are exposed and questioned, but first and foremost the artist show that communicative action between men and women was insufficient. The androcentric order did not acknowledge women and men as equals, in accordance with that, the possibility of conversation, in the sense of Habermas, came to nothing. Under such circumstances an understanding between men and women could not be reached. Love within the institution of marriage also suffered since it could not be founded in acknowledgement as long as the structure maintained. Saga and Adil, the main characters in <em>Lejonets unge</em>, personify, on the other hand, Stéenhoffs ideas of what is being needed to change the androcentric structure. They are citizens of the future.</p><p>My focus is on human action (in an Aristotelian sense) in the plays, the way characters stage themselves and bring the plot forward, shed light upon their possibilities and limitations in proportion to each other as men and women. My analysis thereby contrasts with the greater part of earlier research. I give prominence to the connection between psychological conflict and social position/role. In <em>Skådespelerskan</em>, <em>Romeos Julia</em> and <em>Lejonets unge</em> all of the characters’ psychological conflicts are based in gender issues, the consequences of being a man or woman in the 18th century, rather than explicit existential matters.</p>

Anne Charlotte Leffler, Victoria Benedictsson and Frida Stéenhoff were all part of the Modern Breakthrough in Swedish literature. By utilizing Jürgen Habermas theoretical works on communicative action, and Nancy Fraser’s supplementary reading of his theory, this essay makes clear that the authors’ struggle for an understanding and a rethinking of social norms in their plays Skådespelerskan (1873), Romeos Julia (1888) and Lejonets unge (1896) can be read as a contribution to the public debate. Dialogue has a key function for female authors during the Modern Breakthrough. Women and mens’ possibilities to take part in conversation and argument as equals, requires the professional woman’s transgression and access to the privileges of both public (State) administration – “system”, and world of everyday life – “lifeworld”. As oppositional authors, Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff took advantage of the literary public domain, in this case the theatre. The theatre as public sphere had a more effective capacity to affect its audience than fiction. The plays were written and staged in a cultural period that, compared with the present one, in a greater sense influenced public opinion. The theatre was a powerful part of the public debate, and this debate involved parties from both on-stage and off-stage positions. At the theatre Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff turned the private into politics. Their powerful contribution to the public debate were directed specifically towards the bourgeois audience. They carried on a controversy concerning the notion of the bourgeois family by showing scenarios that raised objection to its idealistic point of view. The bourgeois living room was exposed on stage. Conflicts related to the private sphere were brought up as a theme in a public sphere and by so means were incorporated into the public debate, which at that time was dominated by men. The plays mirrored the audience and the authors’ strategies were based upon the remodeling power inherent in conversation and argumentation. Thereby, the audience were confronted with an alternated reflection of themselves. This reflection should be read as a problematic representation of the writing of history. The alternate mirroring brought in itself forward an argument that emphasized why a new reflection was necessary. Skådespelerskan, Romeos Julia and Lejonets unge examine female artists in a bourgeois environment. Through the artist the structures that maintain bourgeois ideals are exposed and questioned, but first and foremost the artist show that communicative action between men and women was insufficient. The androcentric order did not acknowledge women and men as equals, in accordance with that, the possibility of conversation, in the sense of Habermas, came to nothing. Under such circumstances an understanding between men and women could not be reached. Love within the institution of marriage also suffered since it could not be founded in acknowledgement as long as the structure maintained. Saga and Adil, the main characters in Lejonets unge, personify, on the other hand, Stéenhoffs ideas of what is being needed to change the androcentric structure. They are citizens of the future. My focus is on human action (in an Aristotelian sense) in the plays, the way characters stage themselves and bring the plot forward, shed light upon their possibilities and limitations in proportion to each other as men and women. My analysis thereby contrasts with the greater part of earlier research. I give prominence to the connection between psychological conflict and social position/role. In Skådespelerskan, Romeos Julia and Lejonets unge all of the characters’ psychological conflicts are based in gender issues, the consequences of being a man or woman in the 18th century, rather than explicit existential matters.