Ibsen and His Creation: A Psycho-Critical Study

An excerpt review from The Hibbert Journal, Volume 20: In a previous issue of this Journal we reviewed an able psycho-critical study of Dostoevsky by Mr. Lavrin, and we have now before us a similar study of the Norwegian dramatist Ibsen. The author's aim in the present work is to create, or rather to reconstruct, from the plays, Ibsen's mental struggles and development; and our interest in this reconstruction is increased by the knowledge that Ibsen himself came to the conclusion that the only hope for the future lay in the development of individual character. To thus reconstruct the mental development of an author would appear no easy task, and we must admit, considering that Mr. Lavrin is one of the pioneers of this special kind of criticism, that his success is no mean achievement. Mr. Lavrin, then, does not deal with the early Ibsen, and such plays as The Warriors in Helgeland and Love's Comedy have no place in his book, as they do not enter into the psychological phase that is here being outlined. Our author commences his critique of the man who was "like a mystery sealed with seven seals" by an admirable chapter on "Ibsen's Dramas and the Drama of Ibsen." Starting with some general remarks on the relation of the artist to the ideas of his era, he proceeds to show how this was especially the case with Ibsen, who more than any other writer has so filled his plays with ideas; but with Ibsen ideas were only the raw material of art, for he was as much artist as philosopher, and as Mr. Lavrin says, in an admirable piece of criticism, "his plays often seem deliberate and intentional; his characters also appear, on the whole, to be put into the general scheme with the precision of a mathematician. But while his rather scientific intellect provides the skeleton, his artistic intuition builds up the body of the work. As soon as the whole intentional scheme is complete, there begins a subtle working of the artist and psychologist. The skeleton may be shaped according to the dictates of one or another 'Idea, ' yet this rarely involves the subjugation of Ibsen's subsequent intuition to any preconceived purpose and tendency: it only gives to it the direction, and, this once fixed, the 'intuitive' process strives to develop towards its own independent conclusions." A little later, however, his criticism seems not so original, as when he says that, "if we examine Ibsen's so-called ideals and constructive ideas separately from his art, we see that as 'prophet' and builder he has not much to say." This is of course true to a certain extent, but it must be remembered that he never claimed in any sense to be a teacher of morals, but rather an investigator, and, as such, necessarily destructive. Ibsen's hatred of art for art's sake is also clearly stated, together with some cogent criticism of " Ibsen as Artist," and this is followed by an equally penetrating criticism of his play Brand, which is generally acknowledged as the play which placed Norwegian literature on a level with the greatest European literature. Brand is a moralist of tremendous will, which endeavours to assert itself morally and so subdue the world; but he fails because he has nothing to offer but Will-although he was near achieving greatness when the avalanche buried him. This is one stage of Ibsen's mental evolution. He then turned, in Peer Gynt, and stated the other side of the problem; for Peer Gynt "subdues his will to life, and so commits an outrage upon himself." Brand had sacrificed happiness to his will: Gynt sacrificed everything to happiness. Both failed; there is always the dilemma; and, as Mr. Lavrin remarks, it is also our dilemma, and one which Ibsen did not overcome.