The English analogue to the Théâtre Libre, the Independent theatre, opened its first season (March 13, 1891) with a performance of _Ghosts_. This was not, however, the first introduction of Ibsen to the English stage. On the 7th of June 1889 (six weeks after the production of _The Profligate_) _A Doll's House_ was acted at the Novelty theatre, and ran for three weeks, amid a storm of critical controversy. In the same year _Pillars of Society_ was presented in London. In 1891 and 1892 _A Doll's House_ was frequently acted; _Rosmersholm_ was produced in 1891, and again in 1893; in May and June 1891 _Hedda Gabler_ had a run of several weeks; and early in 1893 _The Master Builder_ enjoyed a similar passing vogue. During these years, then, Ibsen was very much "in the air" in England, as well as in France and Germany. The Independent theatre, in the meantime, under the management of J. T. Grein, found but scanty material to deal with. It presented translations of Zola's _Thérèse Raquin_, and of _A Visit_, by the Danish dramatist Edward Brandes; but it brought to the front only one English author of any note, in the person of George Bernard Shaw, whose "didactic realistic play," _Widowers' Houses_, it produced in December 1892. None the less is it true that the ferment of fresh energy, which between 1887 and 1893 had created a new dramatic literature both in France and in Germany, was distinctly felt in England as well. England did not take at all kindly to it. The productions of Ibsen's plays, in particular, were received with an outcry of reprobation. A great part of this clamour was due to sheer misunderstanding; but some of it, no doubt, arose from genuine and deep-seated distaste. As for the dramatists of recognized standing, they one and all, both from policy and from conviction, adopted a hostile attitude towards Ibsen, expressing at most a theoretical respect overborne by practical dislike. Yet his influence permeated the atmosphere. He had revealed possibilities of technical stagecraft and psychological delineation that, once realized, were not to be banished from the mind of the thoughtful playwright. They haunted him in spite of himself. Still subtler was the influence exerted over the critics and the more intelligent public. Deeply and genuinely as many of them disliked Ibsen's works, they found, when they returned to the old-fashioned play, the adapted frivolity or the homegrown sentimentalism, that they disliked this still more. On every side, then, there was an instinctive or deliberate reaching forward towards something new; and once again it was Pinero who ventured the decisive step.