No one who ever saw Henrik Ibsen, in his later years at any rate, could doubt that he was a born aristocrat. It is said that a change came over his appearance and manner after the publication ofBrand—that he then put off the Bohemian and put on the reserved, correct, punctilious man-of-the-world. When I first saw him in 1881, he had the air of a polished statesman or diplomatist. Distinction was the note of his personality. So early as 1872, he had written to George Brandes, who was then involved in one of his many controversies, “Be dignified! Dignity is the only weapon against such assaults.” His actual words,Vær Fornem!mean, literally translated, “Be distinguished!” No democratic movement which implied a levelling down, could ever command Ibsen’s sympathy. He was a leveller up, or nothing.

This deep-rooted trait in his character found its supreme expression inRosmersholm.

One of his first remarks (to Brandes, January 3, 1882) after the storm had broken out overGhostswas: “I feel most painfully affected by the crudity, theplebeian element in all our public discussion. The very praiseworthy attempt to make of our people a democratic community has inadvertently gone a good way towards making us a plebeian community. Distinction of soul seems to be on the decline at home.” The same trend of thought makes itself felt again and again in Dr. Stockmann’s great speech in the fourth act ofAn Enemy of the People; but it appears only incidentally in that play, and not at all inThe Wild Duck. It was a visit which he paid to Norway in the summer of 1885 that brought the need for “ennoblement” of character into the foreground of his thought, and inspired him with the idea ofRosmersholm. “Since he had last been home,” writes Henrik Jæger, “the great political battle had been fought out, and had left behind it a fanaticism and bitterness of spirit which astounded him. He was struck by the brutality of the prevailing tone; he felt himself painfully affected by the rancorous and vulgar personalities which drowned all rational discussion of the principles at stake; and he observed with sorrow the many enmities to which the contest had given rise.... On the whole, he received the impression—as he remarked in conversation—that Norway was inhabited, not by two million human beings, but by two million cats and dogs. This impression has recorded itself in the picture of party divisions presented inRosmersholm. The bitterness of the vanquished is admirably embodied in Rector Kroll; while the victors’ craven reluctance to speak out their whole hearts is excellently characterised in the freethinker and opportunist, Mortensgård.”

What was this “great political battle,” the echoes of which reverberate throughRosmersholm? Though a knowledge of its details is in no way essential tothe comprehension of the play, the following account[1]of it may not be out of place.

The Norwegian constitution of 1814 gave the King of Norway and Sweden a suspensive veto on the enactments of the Norwegian Storthing or Parliament, but provided that a bill passed by three successive triennial Storthings should become law without the Royal assent. This arrangement worked well enough until about 1870, when the Liberal party became alive to a flaw in the Constitution. The whole legislative and financial power was vested in the Storthing; but the Ministers had no seats in it and acknowledged no responsibility save to the King. Thus the overwhelming Liberal majority in the Storthing found itself baulked at every turn by a Conservative ministry, over which it had no effective control. In 1872, a Bill enacting that Ministers should sit in the Storthing was passed by 80 votes to 29, and was vetoed by the King. It was passed again and again by successive Storthings, the last time by 93 votes to 20; but now King Oscar came forward with a declaration thaton matters affecting the Constitutionhis veto was not suspensive, but absolute, and once more vetoed the Bill. This measure was met by the Storthing with a resolution (June 9, 1880) that the Act had become law in spite of the veto. The King ignored the resolution, and, by the advice of his Ministers, claimed an absolute veto, not only on constitutional questions, but on measures of supply. Then the Storthing adopted the last resource provided by the Constitution: it impeached the Ministers before the Supreme Court of the kingdom. Political rancour ran incredibly high, and there was a great final tussleover the composition of the Supreme Court; but the Liberals were masters of the situation, and carried all before them. One by one the Ministers were dismissed from office and fined. The King ostentatiously testified his sympathy with them, and selected a new Ministry from the Extreme Right. They failed to carry on the government of the country, and matters were at a deadlock. At last, however, King Oscar gave way. On June 26, 1884, he sent for Johan Sverdrup, the statesman who for a quarter of a century had guided the counsels of the Liberal party. Sverdrup consented to form a Ministry, and the battle ended in a Liberal victory along the whole line.

Ten years elapsed between Ibsen’s hegira of 1864 and his first brief return to his native land. Before his second visit eleven more years intervened; and during the summer of 1885, which he spent for the most part at Molde, he found the air still quivering with the rancours begotten of the great struggle. In a speech which he addressed to a meeting of workmen at Trondhjem (June 14, 1885) he said that the years of his absence had brought “immense progress in most directions,” but that he was disappointed to observe that “the most indispensable individual rights were far less secured than he had hoped and expected to find them under the new order of things.” He found neither freedom of thought nor freedom of speech beyond a limit arbitrarily fixed by the dominant majority. “There remains much to be done,” he continued, “before we can be said to have attained real liberty. But I fear that our present democracy will not be equal to the task. An element ofnobilitymust be introduced into our national life, into ourParliament, and into our Press. Of course it is not nobility of birth that I am thinking of, nor of money, nor yet of knowledge, nor even of ability and talent: I am thinking of nobility of character, of will, of soul.”

When he spoke these words he had been little more than a week in Norway; but it is clear thatRosmersholmwas already germinating in his mind.

On his return to Munich he began to think out the play, and on February 14, 1886, he wrote to Carl Snoilsky, the Swedish poet; “I am much taken up with a new play, which I have long had in mind, and for which I made careful studies during my visit to Norway.” It may be mentioned that Ibsen had met Snoilsky at Molde during the previous summer, and that they had seen a good deal of each other. The manuscript ofRosmersholmwas sent to the printers at the end of September 1886, and a letter to Hegel accompanied it in which Ibsen said: “So far as I can see, the play is not likely to call forth attacks from any quarter; but I hope it will lead to lively discussion. I look for this especially in Sweden.” Why in Sweden? Perhaps because, as we shall see presently, the story was partly suggested by a recent episode in Swedish social history. Before proceeding to the question of origins, however, I may quote the only other reference to the play, of any importance, which occurs in Ibsen’s letters. The chairman of a debating-club in Christiania had addressed to the poet a letter on behalf of the club, which apparently contained some question or suggestion as to the fundamental idea of the play. Ibsen’s answer was dated Munich, February 13, 1887. “The call to work,” he said, “is certainly distinguishable throughoutRosmersholm. But the play also deals with the struggle with himself which every serious-minded man must face in order to bring his life into harmony with his convictions. For the different spiritual functions do not develop evenly and side by side in any given human being. The acquisitive instinct hastens on from conquest to conquest. The moral consciousness, the ‘conscience,’ on the other hand, is very conservative. It has deep roots in tradition and the past generally. Hence arises the conflict in the individual. But first and foremost, of course, the play is a creative work, dealing with human beings and human destinies.”

Dr. George Brandes is our authority for associatingRosmersholmwith the social episode above alluded to—an episode which came within Ibsen’s ken just while the play was in process of gestation. A Swedish nobleman, personally known to Ibsen, and remarkable for that amenity and distinction of manner which he attributes to Rosmer, had been unhappily married to a lady who shared none of his interests, and was intellectually quite unsympathetic to him. Much more sympathetic was a female relative of his wife’s. The relation between them attracted attention, and (as inRosmersholm) was the subject of venomous paragraphs in the local Press. Count Blank left his home and went abroad, was joined by the sympathetic cousin, resigned the high office which he held in his native country, and returned to his wife the fortune she had brought him. Shortly afterwards the Countess died of consumption, which was, of course, supposed to have been accelerated by her husband’s misconduct. The use that Ibsen made of this unhappy story affords a perfect example of the working-up of raw material in the factory of genius. Not one of the traits thatconstitute the originality and greatness of the play is to be found in the actual circumstances. He remodelled the whole episode; it was plastic as a sculptor’s clay in his hands; but doubtless it did give him something to seize upon and re-create. For the character of Rebecca, it is believed (on rather inadequate grounds, it seems to me) that Ibsen borrowed some traits from Charlotte Stieglitz, who committed suicide in 1834, in the vain hope of stimulating the intellectual activity of her husband, a minor poet.[2]For Ulric Brendel, Dr. Brahm relates that Ibsen found a model in an eccentric “dream-genius” known to him in Italy, who created only in his mind, and despised writing. But Brendel is so clearly a piece of the poet’s own “devilment” as he used to call it, that it is rather idle to look for his “original.” The scene of the play is said to have been suggested to Ibsen by an old family seat near Molde. Be this as it may, Dr. Brandes is certainly mistaken in declaring that there is no such “castle” as Rosmersholm in Norway, and thence arguing that Ibsen had begun to write for a cosmopolitan rather than a Norwegian audience. Rosmersholm is not a “castle” at all; and old houses such as Ibsen describes are far from uncommon.

Published on November 23, 1886,Rosmersholmwas first acted in Bergen in January 1887, in Gothenburg in March, in Christiania and Stockholm not till April. Copenhagen did not see it until November 1887, when it was acted by a Swedish travelling company. Its first production in Germany took place at Augsburg in April 1887, the poet himself being present. It wasproduced in Berlin in May 1887, in Vienna not till May 1893. There are few of the leading German theatres where it has not been acted, and has not taken a more or less prominent place in the repertory. In Germany indeed (though not elsewhere) it seems to rank among Ibsen’s most popular works. In LondonRosmersholmwas first acted at the Vaudeville Theatre on February 23, 1891, Mr. F. R. Benson playing Rosmer, and Miss Florence Farr, Rebecca. Four performances of it were given at the Opera Comique in 1893, with Mr. Lewis Waller as Rosmer, and Miss Elizabeth Robins as Rebecca. In 1892, a writer who adopted the pseudonym of “Austin Fryers” produced, at the Globe Theatre, a play calledBeata, which purported to be a “prologue” toRosmersholm—the drama which Ibsen (perversely in Mr. Fryers’ judgment) chose to narrate instead of exhibiting it in action. Not until 1893 wasRosmersholmproduced in Paris, by the company entitled“L’Œuvre,”under the direction of M. Lugnê Poé. This company afterwards acted it in London and in many other cities—among the rest in Christiania. In Italy, Eleonora Duse has recently added the play to her repertory, with scenery designed by Mr. Gordon Craig. I have no record of any American production.

WithRosmersholmwe reach the end of the series of social dramas which began seventeen years earlier withThe League of Youth. In all these plays the individual is treated, more or less explicitly, as a social unit, a member of a class, an example of some collective characteristic, or a victim of some collective superstition, injustice or stupidity. The plays which follow, on the other hand, beginning withThe Lady from the Sea, are plays of pure psychology. There are, no doubt, many women like Ellida Wangel orHedda Gabler; but it is as individuals, not as members of a class, that they interest us; nor is their fate conditioned, like that of Nora or Mrs. Alving, by any social prejudice or pressure. But inRosmersholmman is still considered as a “political animal.” The play, as we have seen, actually took its rise as a protest against a morbid condition of the Norwegian public mind, as observed by the poet at a particular point of time. George Brandes, indeed, has very justly contended that it ought to rank withAn Enemy of the PeopleandThe Wild Duckas a direct outcome of that momentous incident in Ibsen’s career, the fierce attack uponGhosts. “Rosmer,” says Dr. Brandes, “begins where Stockmann left off. He wants to do from the very first what the doctor only wanted to do at the end ofAn Enemy of the People—to make proud, free, noble beings of his countrymen. At the beginning of the play, Rosmer is believed to be a decided Conservative (which the Norwegian considered Ibsen to be for many years afterThe League of Youth), and as long as this view is generally held, he is esteemed and admired, while everything that concerns him is interpreted in the most favourable manner. As soon, however, as his complete intellectual emancipation is discovered, and especially when it appears that he himself does not attempt to conceal the change in his views, public opinion turns against him.... Ibsen had been almost as much exposed as Rosmer to every sort of attack for some time after the publication ofGhosts, which (from the Conservative point of view) marked his conversion to Radicalism.” The analogy between Ibsen’s experience and Rosmer’s is far too striking not to have been present to the poet’s mind.

But, though the play distinctly belongs to the socialseries, it no less distinctly foreshadows the transition to the psychological series. Rosmer and Rebecca (or I am greatly mistaken) stand out from the social background much more clearly than their predecessors. They seem to grow away from it. At first they are concerned about political duties and social ideals; but, as the action proceeds, all these considerations drop away from them, or recur but as remembered dreams, and they are alone with their tortured souls. Then we cannot but note the intrusion of pure poetry—imagination scarcely deigning to allege a realistic pretext—in the personage of Ulric Brendel. He is of the same kindred as the Stranger inThe Lady from the Sea, and the Rat-Wife inLittle Eyolf. He marks Ibsen’s final rebellion against the prosaic restrictions which, fromPillars of Societyonwards, he had striven to impose upon his genius.

He was yet to write plays more fascinating thanRomersholm, but none greater in point of technical mastery. It surpassesThe Wild Duckin the simplicity of its material, and in that concentration which renders its effect on the stage, perhaps, a little monotonous, and so detracts from its popularity. In construction it is a very marvel of cunning complexity. It is the consummate example in modern times of the retrospective method of which, in ancient times, the consummate example was theŒdipus Rex. This method has been blamed by many critics; but the first great critic of English drama commended it in the practice of the ancient poets. “They set the audience, as it were,” says Dryden, “at the post where the race is to be concluded.” “In unskilful hands,” I have said elsewhere, “the method might doubtless become very tedious; but when, as inRosmersholm, every phase of the retrospect has a definite reaction upon thedrama—the psychological process—actually passing on the stage, the effect attained is surely one of peculiar richness and depth. The drama of the past and the drama of the present are interwoven in such a complex yet clear and stately harmony as Ibsen himself has not often rivalled.”

THE LADY FROM THE SEAINTRODUCTION

Ibsen’s birth-place, Skien, is not on the sea, but at the head of a long and very narrow fiord. At Grimstad, however, and again at Bergen, he had for years lived close to the skerry-bound coast. After he left Bergen, he seldom came in touch with the open sea. The upper part of Christiania Fiord is a mere salt-water lake; and in Germany he never saw the sea, in Italy only on brief visits to Ischia, Sorrento, Amalfi. We find him, in 1880,[3]writing to Hegel from Munich: “Of all that I miss down here, I miss the sea most. That is the deprivation to which I can least reconcilemyself.”myself.”Again, in 1885, before the visit which he paid that year to Norway, he writes from Rome to the same correspondent, that he has visions of buying a country-house by the sea, in the neighbourhood of Christiania. “The sight of the sea,” he says, “is what I most miss in these regions; and this feeling grows year by year.” During the weeks he spent at Molde that year, therecan be no doubt that he was gathering not only the political impressions which he used inRosmersholm, but the impressions of ocean and fiord, and of the tide of European life flowing past, but not mingling with, the “carp-pond” existence of a small Norwegian town, which he was afterwards to embody inThe Lady from the Sea. That invaluable bibliographer, Halvorsen, is almost certainly wrong in suggesting that Veblungsnes, at the head of the Romsdalfiord, is the scene of the play. The “local situation” is much more like that of Molde itself. There Ibsen must frequently have seen the great English tourist steamer gliding noiselessly to its moorings, before proceeding up the fiord to Veblungsnes, and then, on the following day, slipping out to sea again.

Two years later, in 1887, Ibsen spent the summer at Frederikshavn and at Sæby in the north of Jutland, not far from the Skaw. At Sæby I visited him; and from a letter written at the time I make the following extract: “He said that Fru Ibsen and he had first come to Frederikshavn, which he himself liked very much—he could knock about all day among the shipping, talking to the sailors, and so forth. Besides, he found the neighbourhood of the sea favourable to contemplation and constructive thought. Here, at Sæby, the sea was not so easily accessible. But Fru Ibsen didn’t like Frederikshavn because of the absence of pleasant walks about it; so Sæby was a sort of compromise between him and her.” I remember that he enlarged to me at great length on the fascination which the sea exercised over him. He was then, he said, “preparing some tomfoolery for next year.” On his return to Munich, he put his ideas into shape, andThe Lady from the Seawas published in November 1888.

Ibsen wrote few letters while the play was in process of preparation, and none of them contains any noteworthy reference to it. On the other hand, we possess a very curious first draft of the story[4](dated March 5, 1880), which shows in a most interesting fashion how an idea grew in his mind. Abbreviating freely, I will try to indicate the main points of difference between the sketch and the finished play.

The scene of the action was originally conceived as a much smaller town than it ultimately became, shut in and overshadowed by high, abrupt rocks. (Note that when he wrote the sketch Ibsen had not yet visited Molde.) There was to be an hotel and a sanatorium, and a good deal of summer gaiety in the place; but the people were to long in an impotent, will-less fashion for release from their imprisonment in the “shadow-life” of this remote corner of the world. Through the short summer, they were always to have the long winter impending over them; and this was to be a type of life: “A bright summer day with the great darkness behind it—that is all.” This motive, though traces of it remain, is much less emphasized than was at first intended.

The characters were to fall into three groups: inhabitants of the town, summer visitors, and passing tourists. The tourists were simply to “come and go, and enter episodically into the action”; but the other two groups are more or less individualised.

The first group is thus described: “The lawyer married a second time, to the woman from the open sea outside. Has two young but grown-up daughters by his first marriage. Elegant, distinguished, bitter. Hispast tarnished by an indiscretion. His career thereby cut short. The disreputable signboard-painter with the artist-dreams, happy in his imaginings. The old, married clerk. Has written a play in his youth, which was only once acted.[5]Is for ever touching it up, and lives in the illusion that it will be published and will make a great success. Takes no steps, however, to bring this about. Nevertheless, accounts himself one of the ‘literary’ class. His wife and children believe blindly in the play. (Perhaps a private tutor, not a clerk.) Tailor Fresvik, the man-midwife of radicalism, who shows his ‘emancipation’ in ludicrous attempts at debauchery—affairs with other men’s wives—talks of divorce and so forth.”

We see that, in the course of elaboration, not only the profession, but the character of Wangel was entirely altered. It is noteworthy, by the way, that, with Ibsen, lawyers are always more or less unsympathetic characters (Stensgård, Helmer, Krogstad, Brack) while doctors are more or less sympathetic (Fieldbo, Rank, Stockmann, Relling, Wangel, Herdal). We see, too, how he saved up for seventeen years the character of the clerk-dramatist. Found superfluous inThe Lady from the Sea, he became the delightful Foldal ofJohn Gabriel Borkman. The radical tailor was destined never to come to life; and the characteristics of the “signboard-painter” were divided between Ballested and Lyngstrand.

In the second group, however—that of the summer visitors—the consumptive sculptor Lyngstrand isalready pretty completely sketched. The group was also to have included Lyngstrand’s “patron” and his patron’s wife—a “stupid, uppish, and tactless woman, who wounds the patient sometimes without meaning it, sometimes on purpose.” The patron’s wife has entirely disappeared from the completed play, while the patron, though mentioned, has not even a name.

But the oddest fact which this sketch brings to light is that Arnholm and the Stranger were formed by the scission, so to speak, of one character, denominated the “Strange Passenger.” Ellida[6]was originally to have been a pastor’s daughter. She was to have engaged herself secretly to a “young and unprincipled mate”—a midshipman dismissed the navy. This engagement she broke off, partly at her father’s command, partly of her own free will, because she could not forgive what she had learnt of the young sailor’s past. Then, after her marriage, she came to feel that in her ignorance and prejudice she had been too hard on him, and to believe that “essentially—in her imagination—it was with him that she had led her married life.” This is very like the feeling of Ellida in the play; but her story has become much more strange and romantic. It is not quite clear—the sketch being incomplete—whether the ex-midshipman was to have appeared in person. But there was to have been a “Strange Passenger” (so nicknamed by the other summer visitors) who had been in love with Ellida in the old days, and of whom she was now to make a confidant, very much as she does of Arnholmin the play. His character, however, was to have been quite unlike that of Arnholm; he was to have been “bitter, and given to cutting jests”—somewhat reminiscent, in fact, of the Strange Passenger inPeer Gynt. Ibsen may have meant that the nickname should be given him in allusion to that figure. We see, at any rate, that the Strange Passenger, in his capacity as Ellida’s confidant, became Arnholm, who is not in the least strange; while the strangeness was transferred to Ellida’s former lover, who, originally conceived as a comparatively commonplace personage, now became distinctively “the Stranger.”

Fragments of dialogue are roughly sketched—especially the young sculptor’s story of the shipwreck and of the group it has suggested to him. Ellida’s fancy that mankind has taken a wrong turning in developing into land-animals instead of water-animals is rather more carefully worked out in the sketch than in the play. It takes the form of a semi-serious biological theory, not attributed to any particular character: “Why should we belong to the dry land? Why not to the air? Why not to the sea? The common longing for wings—the strange dreams that one can fly, and that one does fly without feeling the least surprise at the fact—how is all this to be explained?” The suggestion evidently is that these dreams are reminiscences of the bird stage in our development; and then the poet goes on to suggest the same explanation of the intense longing for the sea which he attributes to Ellida: “People who are akin to the sea. Bound to the sea. Dependent on the sea. Must get back to it. A fish-species forms the primordial link in the evolutionary chain. Do rudiments of it survive in our nature? In the nature of some of us?” He also indicates a fantasy of floating citiesto be towed southwards or northwards according to the season. “To learn to control storms and the weather. Some such glorious time will come. And we—we shall not be there to see it.” All this over-luxuriant growth of fantasy has been carefully pruned in the completed play.

The main incidents of the first act are sketched out in a form not very different from that which they ultimately assumed—and there the scenario breaks off.

“The Stranger’s dæmonic power over Ellida was suggested,” says John Paulsen, “by Welhaven’s strange influence over Camilla Wergeland;” while Dr. Brahm asserts “on credible authority” that the incident of the rings thrown into the sea reproduces an episode of Ibsen’s own early life in Bergen. Until the “credible authority” is more clearly specified, we need not pin our faith to the latter assertion; but the former receives some confirmation in a letter which Ibsen addressed on May 3, 1889, to the lady whom Paulsen mentions. This was Camilla Collett, born Wergeland, a sister of the great lyric poet, Henrik Wergeland, and the authoress of a book,From the Camp of the Dumb(1877), which is said to have greatly influenced Ibsen’s attitude towards the woman-question, and to have stimulated him to the production ofA Doll’s House. I do not know the story of her relation to J. S. C. Welhaven, a distinguished poet, and her brother’s chief rival; but it is clear from Ibsen’s letter that she was in some way present to his mind during the composition ofThe Lady from the Sea. This is what he wrote: “Allow me to send you a few words of very sincere thanks for your comprehension ofThe Lady from the Sea. I felt pretty sure in advance that from you more than any one else I couldrely upon such comprehension; but it gave me inexpressible pleasure to find my hope confirmed by your letter. Yes, there are points of resemblance—indeed many. And you have seen and felt them—points, I mean, which I could arrive at only by divination. But it is now many years since you, in virtue of your spiritual development, began, in one form or another, to make your presence felt in my work.” Camilla Collett died in 1895, at the age of eighty-two.

Nowhere hasThe Lady from the Seaproved one of Ibsen’s most popular works. It was acted in all the Scandinavian capitals, and in several German cities, in February and March 1889. The poet himself was present at the first performance at the Royal Theatre, Berlin, on March 4, and afterwards (March 14) at a performance at Weimar, where he was called before the curtain after each act, and received a laurel wreath. In a letter to Hoffory, he expressed himself delighted with the actor who played the Stranger at Weimar; “I could not desire, and could scarcely conceive, a better embodiment of the part—a long gaunt figure, with hawk-like features, piercing black eyes, and a fine, deep, veiled voice.” The play holds the stage here and there in Germany, but is not very frequently acted.

In London, five performances of Mrs. Marx-Aveling’s translation were given, under the direction of Dr. Aveling, at Terry’s Theatre in May 1891—the year of the first performance in England ofGhosts,RosmersholmandHedda Gabler. This wholly inadequate production was followed, eleven years later, by a revival at the Royalty Theatre, by the Stage Society, in which Ellida was played by Miss Janet Achurch, and the Stranger by Mr. Laurence Irving. In Paris, an organisation calling itself “LesEscholiers,” producedLa Dame de la Merin 1892. It was afterwards played, both in Paris and on tour, by theThéâtre de l’Œuvre. I find no record of performances in other countries.

The discovery thatThe Lady from the Seawas planned so early as 1880 is particularly interesting in view of the fact that, in technical concentration, and even, one is inclined to say, in intellectual power, it falls notably below the level of its immediate predecessors,The Wild DuckandRosmersholm, and its immediate successors,Hedda GablerandThe Master Builder. It would scarcely be going too far to call it the weakest thing Ibsen produced betweenA Doll’s HouseandJohn Gabriel Borkman, both inclusive. I well remember the sense of slackening dramatic fibre with which I read it on its first appearance; the fear that age was beginning to tell upon the poet; and the relief with which I found him, inHedda Gabler, once more at the very height of his power. Some readers may take exception to this view, and declare that they preferThe Lady from the Seato several of the plays which I would rank above it. In point of amenity and charm, it doubtless ranks high among Ibsen’s works; its poetic merits are great; but the comparative laxity of its technique seems to me quite unmistakable. The main interest—the Ellida-Wangel interest, let us call it—is constantly being interrupted by two subsidiary interests: the Arnholm-Boletta interest, and the Boletta-Hilda-Lyngstrand interest. These lines of interest touch each other, but are not effectually interwoven. In no other play of Ibsen’s, in fact, sinceThe League of Youth, is there such a marked sub-plot, or, rather, two sub-plots; and, for my part, judging them by the high Ibsen standard, I find neither of these sub-plots particularly interesting.The main action, on the other hand, is not only interesting but full of psychological truth. Ellida is one of the most living of Ibsen’s women. There are few of his heroines whom one has not seen and recognised in real life; but Ellida in particular I happen to have known intimately, though Ibsen never heard of the lady in question. The character of Wangel, too, is not only very amiable, but very closely observed. Yet even in the working out of this main theme, there is, I think, a technical weakness. We feel that, in the decisive scene of the last act, Wangel’s mere statement that he sets Ellida free is an insufficient pivot for the revolution which takes place in her mind. Psychologically, no doubt, it is adequate, but dramatically it is ineffective. The poet ought, I suggest, to have devised some more convincing means of bringing home both to her and to us the fact of her manumission. In default of a practical proof, a symbolic indication might have served; but something we want beyond a mere verbal declaration. It may be taken as a technical principle, I believe, that a change of mind on which so much depends ought, for purposes of dramatic effect, to be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign sufficiently cogent to make the audience fully realise and believe in it.

Another technical weakness, more obvious, though perhaps less important, is the astounding coincidence by which Lyngstrand, the one witness to the Stranger’s frenzy on reading of Ellida’s faithlessness, is made, by pure chance, to encounter Ellida and to tell her the story.[7]This is, I think, the only real abuse of coincidencein Ibsen’s modern plays, fromPillars of Societyonwards. One or two other much slighter coincidences—such as, inA Doll’s House, Mrs. Linden’s former acquaintance with Krogstad—are accounted for by the fact that Norway is a very small country, in which, roughly speaking, every one of the town-dwelling upper and middle class knows, or has heard of, every one else.

As I have pointed out in the introduction toRosmersholm,The Lady from the Seais the first play in which Ibsen entirely abandons social satire and devotes himself to pure psychology. It is also the first play in which he trenches on the occult. He was to go much further in this direction inThe Master BuilderandLittle Eyolf; but already he pursues the plan, which was also Hawthorne’s, of carefully leaving us in doubt as to whether, and how far, any supernormal influence is at work. On the whole, however, he probably intends us to conclude that the Stranger’s uncanny power over Ellida exists only in her imagination.

1. Condensed from an article in theFortnightly Review, September 1885.

2. See note (in the Norwegian and German editions) to Ibsen’sLetters, No. 146. As to Charlotte Stieglitz, see Brandes’Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature, vol. vi., p. 296 (London, Heinemann, 1905).

3. The date is July 16. On March 5 of the same year he had (as we shall see later) written down the first outline of what was afterwards to becomeThe Lady from the Sea.

4. Published inDie neue Rundschau, December 1906. The same magazine contains a first draft ofA Doll’s House. It appeared too late to be noticed in the Introduction to that play.

5. I met in Rome, in 1881-82, when Ibsen was living there, a minor official of the Vatican Library, then a middle-aged man, who had written eighteen or twenty tragedies, all of which I saw in exquisite manuscript. One of them,Coriolano, had been acted once, on the day, I think, before the Italian troops entered Rome in 1870. Is it possible that Ibsen, too, had come across this rival dramatist?

6. The name originally assigned her was “Thora.” Readers who know anything of Norway will probably realise how absolutely right was the substitution of “Ellida.” It is a masterstroke in the art of nomenclature.

7. It is suggested that the coincidence is to be regarded as part of the “occult” atmosphere of the play. But I doubt whether this was in the poet’s mind; and, in any case, the defence does not seem a very good one.

Back to Index Next

CONTENTS