Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Yearbook of English Studies
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
exploration could be carried out in something of the same spirit, which I take
to be one not of evasiveness, or reprehensible vagueness, but of concern for
asking the right questions. For it seems to me, when it comes to considering
Ibsen's texts, and in particular the part played by his language in the
dramatic effect and significance of those texts, that we have tended not to
ask enough questions, or to ask the wrong ones, or to press too readily for
easy answers. The qualities of Ibsen's prose, his personal handling of the
general characteristics of the Danish-Norwegian language he wrote in, are
not easily open to analysis, and especially not to analysis carried out with the
expectation of finding what criticism of the last forty or so years has taught
us to look for in 'poetic' drama: semantic ambiguities, complexities of syntax
and, above all, 'the kind of volatility or ductility of Shakespeare's or Racine's
metaphors'.2 Unlike Strindberg, Ibsen had nothing Shakespearian about his
verbal imagination, if by that we mean the associative power of thinking in
images. If that is what we look for we shall find Ibsen's language flat, thin,
lifeless, vague, and all the other adjectives which Scrutiny used to bestow on it
and which have recently cropped up again in two books presenting Ibsen
as a prosaic and pretentious writer with a spurious 'poetic' reputation.3
It seems that it is necessary to point out, with an Ibsenite obviousness, that
there are other kinds of verbal imagination as well. My contention is that
Ibsen's kind, his sense and use of language, is one very much at the service of
the theatrical context and governed by it. (Incidentally, I think there is more
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
Io3
That this point needed making, and demonstrating, did not occur to me while
working with producers and actors in the rehearsal rooms of the National
Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. But practical answers, like
finding the proof of the pudding in the eating, should be capable of being
translated into scholarly language; and so one is grateful for the challenge of
Ronald Gray's Ibsen: A Dissenting View. The dissension, he makes clear, is not
a simple matter of Ibsen read in the study versus Ibsen seen and heard in the
theatre. His book makes a point of 'experiencing' each of Ibsen's last twelve
plays 'so far as possible as one would in the theatre, in one's own ideal
performance' (p. 25). The rather thin and sad experiences which these private
performances produce have, Dr Gray concedes, to be weighed against Ibsen's
'continuing success on the stage'. But this success can be explained, partly by
the fortuitous topicality of Ibsen's symbols (the relevance of A Doll's House
in the 1970s; or, one might add, the Watergate ethos of the world of Pillars
of the Community), partly by 'dutiful respect', and partly by 'the amiable
conspiracy of actors and actresses to provide an evening's entertainment,
which is not always doggedly faithful to every nuance of the text' (p. 207).
Or can it? In my own experience, there was little of 'dutiful respect' in the
way the Aldwych audiences in the summer and autumn of I977 reacted to
the revival of Pillars of the Community, and far more of that exceptional
agitation which Henry James felt at the first London performance of Hedda
Gabler and which swept him along 'the whole keyboard of emotion, from
frantic enjoyment to ineffable disgust'.1 No more does 'amiable conspiracy'
describe what I saw and heard of actors and actresses struggling indeed to
be 'faithful to every nuance' of Ibsen's text; and if they were 'dogged' in that
faithfulness, they were equally so (though no one would think of applying
that adjective) in relation to texts by Shakespeare, and Beckett, and Pinter,
on which they were simultaneously working. That the Ibsen they spoke was
not the one whom Dr Gray (who knows Norwegian) and Mr Black (who
does not) read is a problem not just of translation. Or, rather, it is a problem
more basic to the act of translation than are the details of vocabulary, grammar,
syntax, sound, and rhythm. Any translation of a text, whether into another
language or into stage performance, involves interpretation; and, whatever
the details of the interpretation, it reflects, as a whole, an attitude of trust or
distrust in the original text. Tidying up Ibsen's verbal texture (the broken
sentences, the leaps in logic, the inarticulacies) or 'trimming' the repetitions
out of his dialogue, has been one form of distrust common among translators.2 Refusing to see that texture in its theatrical context has been another,
among critics. The mind's stage is a fine and private place, but, with ourselves as all the actors and the producer, too, few of us are able to reproduce
1 Henry James, 'On the Occasion of Hedda Gabler', New Review, 4 (June I891), 519-30; reprinted
in Ibsen: The Critical Heritage, edited by Michael Egan (London, 1972), 234-44; see p. 235.
2 See John Gabriel Borkman, translated by Michael Meyer (London, 1960), 'Note on the Translation', p. 92.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I04
on it the clash of voices and wills into which the text is demanding to be
translated; or, to put the same point differently, which is part of the language
of the text. Few of us, too, can re-create that other crucial aspect of the traffic
of the real stage: the fact that any play, be it Hamlet or Happy Days, is a process,
having gripped his heart; Ella Rentheim, his sister-in-law and the woman
whose love he sold for the chairmanship of a bank, has watched him die and
is now in front of the bench; Gunhild Borkman, his wife and Ella's twinsister, who will not look at the dead face of her husband, is behind it. Gunhild
is struck by the ironic justice of his mode of death: 'The son of a mountain-
5. ELLA. (med et smaerteligt smil). En dod og to skygger, - det har kulden virket.
(Fru Borkman, bag baenken, og Ella Rentheim foran, raekker hinanden haenderne.)2
In the translation prepared for the National theatre production of the play
this goes as follows:
I. ELLA. It was the cold that killed him.
2. MRS B. (shakes her head). The cold, you say? It killed him long ago.
3. ELLA. (nods to her). And turned the two of us into shadows.
1 Black, p. I62.
2 The Norwegian text is quoted here from the Centenary Edition, Henrik Ibsen: Samlede Verker,
edited by F. Bull, H. Koht, and D. A. Seip, 2I vols (Oslo, I928-57), xIII (I936), I26.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
105
4. MRS B. So it did.
5. ELLA. (with a painful smile). One dead man and two shadows... is what the
cold has made of us.
6. MRS B. Yes... the cold heart. (pause). Now we two can join hands, Ella.
7. ELLA. I think we can... now.
In its visual starkness the scene might well appear an emblem of final
reconciliation: the time 'free' at last, with Borkman gone, and his death
meaningful in that it brings the two women together, like the two families
at the end of Romeo and Juliet. But the dialogue does more than illustrate
long duologue with which it opens, their interchanges have, as here, been
built on the repetition of the same words:
ELLA. ... We have fought once before, haven't we, the two of us... fought to the
death over a human being.
but then the sameness measured the gap between the two of them. Here for
the first time the gap is bridged. But, as they join in 'cold', as 'shadows', over
'the man we both loved', there is nothing positive about the bridge; it simply
takes them both to the same side, beyond both hope and despair, from where
the past (for the dialogue is, of course, concerned to establish the immanence
of the past in the present) can be seen to have merely lighted them 'the way
panes as the curtain rises; in Mrs Borkman's 'I'm always cold'; in Ella's
white hair ('Autumn has come, don't you think, Borkman?'); and in the
human relationships demonstrated. In various ways the characters have been
fighting the cold: Mrs Borkman by clutching Erhart and his 'mission'; Ella
1 John Gabriel Borkman. English Version by Inga-Stina Ewbank and Peter Hall (I975), p. 94.
2 Ewbank and Hall, pp. 34-35.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Io6
by reaching out for the same Erhart to bring some warmth into the last few
months of her doomed life; Borkman by striding 'out into the storm' to
recover his lost vision. Ella's and Gunhild's speeches in this final scene,
conveying more acceptance than recognition of defeat, are psychologically
probable; they express character in attitudes and positions which we now see
as having grown out of what has gone before. In that respect they are, I
suppose, naturalistic. But they also extend, by their choice of words, their
tants of cold, whiteness, death.1 To say that this is 'symbolic' is not very
helpful if, as usually happens, it suggests that Ibsen has supplied on a detachable 'symbolical level' a kind of inert allegorical paraphrase of the 'meaning'
of the action. It says nothing about the dramatic process which started, in
terms of the play's structure, with the arrival of Ella (in black velvet, whitehaired) through the snow and, in terms of the reminiscences which extend
that structure backwards in time, with Borkman's betrayal of humanity for
'the kingdom and the power and the glory'. In that dramatic process far
stranger forces are at work and connexions made. Discussing repetitions of
words in King Lear in her brilliant essay on 'Shakespeare and the Limits of
experience that if you look at or repeat a single word long enough, concentrate
upon it in isolation, it ceases to be a familiar part of speech. Instead it will
differences between Norwegian and English and are almost unsolvable. For
example, Norwegian word rhythm is predominantly trochaic/dachtylic;
most native words have their main stress on the first syllable.3 In addition,
1 Winter is of course also dark, and one is aware of the darkness inside the Rentheim/Borkman
house. But to a Scandinavian imagination I think the whiteness predominates.
2 In Shakespeare Survey, 24 (1971), 19-30 (p. 26).
3 Compared to the polyglot English language, Norwegian is of course very purely Germanic, with,
therefore, a more limited vocabulary and sound range. Words of foreign origin stand out as 'loanwords'. In translating I find I have to overcome an unwillingness to use English words of French
or Latin origin and to remind myself that to an English ear there is nothing particularly 'borrowed'
about them. On rhythm in Ibsen I have found useful information in Ase Hiorth Lervik, Ibsens
verskunst i 'Brand' (Oslo, I969).
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
I07
beginning with a noun in the definite form can also begin with a heavily
accented syllable. The effect, as in (2), 'Kulden, siger du?' ('The cold, you
say?'), is impossible to reproduce in English. Fortunately, other rhythmic
effects in the passage are not: the succession of heavy stresses in the last two
lines, (8) and (9), and in Ella's description of the three of them together, (5):
'En dod og to skygger' ('One dead man and two shadows'). Surprisingly,
most other translations, except for Michael Meyer's, begin that line with
'A dead man', thus making it far more difficult for an actress to achieve the
kind of drained, almost objective tone suggested by the three equal stresses.
Altogether Ibsen relies much on rhythm in this passage, turning colloquial
patterns towards a choric regularity; and fortunately a very literal translation
produces an almost entirely mono-syllabic or di-syllabic pattern with much
the same effect. Therefore it becomes important to find a solution to another
of the peculiarly Norwegian problems in the passage: the 'nok' in (I), which
is one of those virtually untranslatable little modifying adverbs (like 'jo', or
'vel') which haunt every page, sometimes every line, of an Ibsen play. Together with 'snarere' ('rather') it here implies an opinion held guardedly but
firmly and, as the sentence is constructed in the neutral third person, held
grammatically away from the speaker. Several translators have seen fit to
reconstruct this. Michael Meyer's version, 'I think it was the cold that killed
him' introduces a false note of first-person speculation; and Arvid Paulson
Germanic languages the facility for creating compounds, and Ibsen drew on
this, much as Shakespeare drew on the possibilities for puns in Renaissance
English. A compound is more than the sum of the two words yoked together:
at best they modify each other to create a new unit (like Mrs Alving's famous
'lysraed': 'afraid of the light'), much like the two halves of a metaphor.
1 Arvid Paulson, The Late Plays ofHenrik Ibsen (New York, Harper Colophon edition, 1973), p. 369.
For Michael Meyer's version, see note p. 103 above. My attention was drawn to various translations of
this scene by Anne Born's kind comparative review of the version by Peter Hall and myself, in
Notes and Queries, n.s., 24 (Jan-Feb 1977), 70-72 (p. 72).
2See King Lear, v. 3. I72-73.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Io8
commoner compound would be 'hjertevarme', with the adjective 'hjertevarm'. It is, in a sense, just as much on the borderline between the naturalistic and the non-naturalistic as the whole of this scene is. The problem is how
to render this. All Ibsen translators know how his compounds tend to make
one balance on a knife edge between the fatally quaint and the ridiculous.
The absolutely literal translation of'hjertekulden', 'the heart-cold', goes over
the edge to invite dangerous analogues with 'head-cold'. Paulson's solution,
'coldness of the heart', is not free of the diagnostic ring of 'cirrhosis of the
liver'. Meyer's double supply of definite articles, 'the coldness of the heart',
seems to me to make for just the kind of stilted and portentous Ibsenese which
critics decry. Try to speak it, and you sound like an oracle. Try to analyse the
meaning of this abstract expression, and you will soon be accusing Ibsen of
being vague and pretentious. Again, I would not suggest that our attempt at
a solution, 'the cold heart', is the best possible; but at least it makes Mrs
Borkman sound as if she knew what she meant and it more nearly preserves
the rhythm as well as the concreteness of the original. Norman Ginsbury,
who had already committed himself by writing in an interpretation of Ella's
line (I) ('It was the cold that killed him; the cold in our hearts') gets round
the problem by making Mrs Borkman simply echo Ella. Thus (6) becomes
'The cold in our hearts', and thus Ibsen's text is not only misinterpretedl
but its dramatic progression is lost: the run-up to the line on which the two
sisters truly meet at last.
What I have pointed to might seem like very fine details, but it is out of
such details that anything we call 'style' is made; and it is in faithfulness to
them that a translator's trust of Ibsen shows itself. Lest I be accused of having
point to the fact that several of these linguistic and stylistic details were the
results of late revision. In the draft manuscript Ella's line (5) first went:
'Vi er tre dode, - vi tre her' ('We are three dead ones... we three, here').
The crucial 'cold heart' in (6) was an afterthought; and the last two lines of
dialogue, (8) and (9) were also added at a very late stage. To me this suggests
that only then did Ibsen fully hear his text andfeel its dramatic pattern. The
trouble he took to revise and re-write would seem to make the details all the
more significant.
The more general conclusions I wish to draw from this passage are
probably obvious. First, that the important pattern in an Ibsen text, the
1 It is, of course, possible that Ibsen was speaking of the cold heart in all the three protagonists, but
he does not say so, and we need not as translators say it for him. See Norman Ginsbury's translation,
John Gabriel Borkman (London, I960), p. 53.
2 As Dr Gray thinks, Ibsen: A Dissenting View, p. 215.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
Iog
figure in the carpet, is not made up of his 'symbols' but of the structure and
texture of his dialogue. The closing moments in Borkman complete, in their
word and gesture of the play. The 'spatial' vision of an Ibsen play is likely to
present an inert structure of themes and symbols; but such a vision has little
to do with what happens in the theatre, where meaning comes through the
experience, developing moment by moment, of human relationships. The real
dynamics of Ibsen's dramatic form lie in this experience: in the progressive
form of such control, keeping us alert and learning about motives and
characters until the end of the play, and beyond, as James McFarlane has so
Drama'.2 The language of his texts is another, mediating between us and the
characters and us and the play as a whole (which is not necessarily the same
thing). Individual plays have their individual idioms, but they all, from
Pillars of the Community to When We Dead Awaken, use their texts to build
National Theatre audiences most was the sheer range of their relationship
with characters: the invitation to laugh at Borkman one minute, with him
another, and to give near-tragic sympathy the next; the alternation of repul-
sion from and attraction towards Karsten Bernick. I also wish to stress it
because I think far too much has been made of the question (which admittedly
Ibsen himselfinvited, in his sparse comments on his own language) of whether
or not he is able to differentiate his characters by the language they speak.3
The two points are interrelated, in that the play tends to be larger than the
characters, and that this often produces more or less ironically comic
effects. That the play is the thing means that the dialogue is often not primarily
1 Speech to Kristiania students, 10.9.1874; Henrik Ibsen: Samlede Verke, xv, 393.
2 In Contemporary Approaches to Ibsen, I, edited by D. Haakonsen (Oslo, 1966), pp. 35-50.
3 See especially the letters Ibsen wrote to Georg Brandes and Theodor Caspari in June 1884, the
year of The Wild Duck, in both of which he speaks in almost identical terms of how his final draft of a
play aims at 'the more rigorous individualizing of characters'. See Henrik Ibsen: Samlede Verker, xviii,
28-29.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IIO
realistic.1 Aune may not sound like a real worker in a shipyard, but the opening
great economy some of the main tensions in the pillars' community. Yet,
paradoxically, by such patterning Ibsen also sometimes reaches through
the tidy informative realism of much nineteenth-century and twentiethcentury drama to an obsessiveness about the little things which sounds very
modern in the I970s. Thus, near the beginning of Act iv of Borkman, Gunhild
wants to try to call Erhart back to her, as he is escaping in a covered sleigh
with Mrs Wilton to the South:
MRS B. Let me go, Ella. I want to cry out to him down the road. Surely he'll
hear his mother's cry.
BORKMAN. (sinister laugh). And he certainly won't hear his mother's cry.
MRS B. No. He won't hear it.
One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry at the way Mrs Borkman's whole
I have discussed the dark comedy which issues from the inadequacies of
break on which they are meant (by the speaker) to comment (Borkman's
'in a shipwreck someone always has to sink', for example); and also from the
sheer unredeemed and unremitting awfulness of characters to each other.2
When Ella tells Borkman that the doctors do not expect her to live beyond the
end of the winter Borkman is so far from being willing and able to take in
what this means that he replies: 'Well ... the winter's long here, isn't it ...'.
Such cruelty, deliberate or, as in this example, 'unthinking' (as the Stage
Direction says), is particularly pronounced in the dialogue of Borkman; but
it is there from Pillars of the Community on. Very few Ibsen characters are
aware of what other characters really think and feel: Karsten Bernick's
dismissals of his wife and his sister are blatant examples of this; but Rosmer
in his way and Hedda Gabler in hers are equally unaware, and ultimately
1 It can be exceedingly so, as when, at the end of the dinner party in Act I of The Wild Duck,
the dramatic intention is to create the feel of a real bourgeois world. But then The Wild Duck is a play
which uniquely works through its very realism. It is almost unbearable to watch and listen to the
destruction of Hedvig's and Gina's real world by the symbolical constructs of Gregers Werle; and the
most poignant line in the play is Gina's Lear-like 'Look at the child, Ekdal!'.
2 In Theatre Research International, n.s., 2 (October 1976), 44-53.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
II I
moments, when characters look into their past, articulate their 'symbols',
and state their faith, are hardly ever as single-minded ('remorselessly full
of significances') as the dissenting critics would have it.1 The dramatic
significance of a scene like the last dialogue between Ella and Borkman
before he dies comes from its provoking a complex set of responses in the
audience. Dr Gray berates the play for not being Faust, King Lear, The Voysey
Inheritance, or Oedipus at Colonus and Ibsen in this scene for not, 'unlike Wagner
in the Ring', doing 'enough to endow the metals with symbolical value'.2
Such criticism falls desperately wide of the mark of what Ibsen, when we look
at and listen to the dialogue, is doing: clashing two visions of the past, each
suggestively evoked, against each other. Borkman's speeches evoke the nonexistent factories as effectively as Edgar's Dover Cliff speech creates a nonexistent dizzy height, and even Ella is drawn into his hallucinatory sense of
the presence of the 'spirits' he wanted to arouse from the vaults of the bank
and the depths of the mountain, insofar as she answers him in his own
imagery:
Yes... your love is still down there, John. Where it has always been. But up
here in the daylight, remember... was a warm and human heart which beat
for you. And you took this heart and broke it. No, worse than that... ten
times worse! You sold it for... for...
BORKMAN (shivers as if the cold went right through him) For the kingdom... the
I do not think we side with either side here, or feel that either character has
hold of the whole truth. The dialogue is an intensified version of that struggle
which we have watched whenever any two of the three main characters of
the play have met; and what we feel most keenly is the terrible power human
beings have of destroying each other. There is nothing even remotely comic
now, of course, about the separateness of their visions. Indeed it is the very
dialogue, needs a bold, direct, quick delivery.3 Ibsen's texts have suffered
from being spoken with a portentousness which is not there in the phrasing
and the rhythms of the original, from interpretative underlining of symbolic
meanings, from unspoken 'as ifs' before metaphors. His speeches are written
to keep us, the audience, both outside and inside the situation, in a questioning involvement with the characters. The characters do not question, but we
1 See Black, p. 162.
2 Gray, p. I82.
3 Peter Hall speaks with authority on this subject in the introduction to our version of John
Gabriel Borkman.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I I2
do; the pattern of the dialogue helps us to do so; and the delivery of lines
should not stop us from doing so.
I wish, finally, to examine a scene which seems to me to bear out the points
I have been trying to make. It is the one between Martha Bernick and Lona
Hessel in Act iv of Pillars of the Community, where we learn of Martha's
hopeless love, longing and waiting for Johan. In the structure of the play,
lively group scenes alternate with quiet albeit intense duologues. This is one
of the latter, but its lyrical quality, as Martha opens her heart and bares her
feelings, makes it different from anything else in this argumentative-rhetorical
superb acting of the actress in the part of Martha (Paola Dionisotti), who
indeed stayed faithful to every nuance in the text, the scene worked in its
own right, to show what, even at this early stage, Ibsen can achieve by a
compound of naturalism and non-naturalism.
There is no plot need for this scene. Johan and Dina have gone off on
The Palm Tree to a free and natural life in America, aided and abetted by
both Martha and Lona. As both Dina and Martha are still under the impres-
sion that Johan was the seducer of Dina's mother and the cause of all her
misfortune, the kind of revelation we might have expected is of Bernick's
infamy in continuing to let Johan bear the blame for his own misdemeanour,
and worse. But instead we get Martha's confession of love. One might explain
it in symbolical and thematic terms. Ibsen's earliest notes towards the play
show that the basic motif of the piece was going to be the position of women
in a men's world of self-important business.' Though this was overlaid with
other concerns as the play eventually took shape, plenty of the motif remains,
and the action makes us well aware that, as Lona Hessel says in the closing
moments, the men 'don't see' the women. Martha's experience of not being
seen by Johan, as he returns, is then a more poignant version of this theme;
and her sitting there waiting, 'spinning', as women have done, from Eve to
means: by words in comment on what we have seen and what we are now
seeing. The means are almost entirely literal statements. Some of the words
are in themselves emotive, like the repeated 'alone'; some are made peculiarly
emotive by their repetition: 'I have loved him and waited for him. Every
summer I waited for him to come. And then he came, ... but he didn't see
1 See Henrik Ibsen: Samlede Verker, VIII, 154.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
II3
me.' 'He didn't see me' is repeated in Martha's next speech: a flat, literal
statement in itself, but poignant in its theatrical context, and not only because
we have witnessed the confrontation between Johan and Martha in Act in,
... and meanwhile I had been sitting here, spinning and spinning...
LONA. .... the thread of his happiness, Martha.
MARTHA. Yes, it was gold I spun. No bitterness.
By caring for Dina and bringing her up, Martha had indeed been spinning
the thread ofJohan's happiness. Like the girl in Rumpelstiltskin she spun straw
into gold. As with Esther Summerson, there may be a slight mawkishness in
the fairy-tale reference; but I think it is held in check by the idea, also present,
of Martha as one of the Fates, or Norns, spinning the destiny of Johan. The
ineluctable sadness of the lines, however, comes from quite a different echo:
The sadness is counterpointed with Martha's desire to give the tale a happy
ending at her own expense ('We've been two good sisters to him, Lona,
haven't we ?') and in the fifth draft of the play Ibsen allowed her to finish on
a bitter-sweet line which he later removed (but which we presumed to retain
to be.'2
The changes between the last draft and the printed version of this scene are
1 This nursery song has folk-song antecedents: see A. I. Arwidsson, Svenska Fornsdnger, 3 vols
(Stockholm, I834-42), III, 489; and compare L. A. von Arnim and C. Brentano, Des Knaben Wunderhorn, 3 vols (Heidelberg, i806-08), III, 40: 'Spinn, spinn, meine liebe Tochter, Ich kauf dir einen
Mann'.
2 I quote from my own translation of the text and drafts of Pillars of the Community.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
II4
MARTHA. Yes, that was the unfortunate thing, that I didn't notice how the years
(Fifth Draft)
(1877 text)
she is now 'ten years older than him'. The final version gains emotional
strength from repeating the painful 'He didn't see me', though it is arguable
that it loses by omitting Martha's attempt to see her life in the last fifteen
years as a 'happy life'. There may be a loss, too, in that the focus widens in
the final version to take in, first, Martha's self-justification for having any
hope at all, and, secondly, the position of Dina in what never even became a
triangle. I would defend this, in that it makes the emotional web more complicated and richer to the audience. The draft, with its concentration on the
longing and its own peculiar happiness, is more single-mindedly nostalgic,
more Chekhovian. The final version involves a co-existence of the passionate
and the reflective; it presents Martha as anxious (if not as able as she thinks)
to be aware of her situation from the outside. The attempt to judge it ration-
ally ('what grounds ... ?') and the mixture of pain and pleasure (even
relief) in Dina taking her own place and, while gaining happiness, also
preventing Johan from seeing her, Martha, as she really is nowadays: all
this is far less Chekhovian, and probably far more Ibsenite. It is certainly more
of a piece with the tissue of the play.
Pillars of the Community is a play particularly easy to dismiss as a prosaic
structure decorated with an obvious set of symbols: the rotten ships, the fresh
air, the quicksands, the whited sepulchres, and so on. But as it unrolls in the
theatre the symbols are often seen to be part of the false rhetoric of the pillars,
and the real figure in the carpet begins to be made up of a progressive (and
Hilmar Tonnesen, apart from all the more civic pillars, is a very easily
measurable one; and that, having had it measured in the first Act, we are
tediously made to repeat the process for a further three Acts. But it is not
1 I have expanded this point in an essay on Pillars of the Community forthcoming in the first volume
of Themes in Drama, edited by James Redmond (Cambridge University Press). The paradigm I have
in mind is Matthew Arnold's fragment of a poem: 'Below the surface-stream, shallow and light,I
Of what we say we feel - below the stream, I As light, of what we think we feel - there flows I With
noiseless current strong, obscure and deep, I The central stream of what we feel indeed.'
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
INGA-STINA EWBANK
II5
quite as simple as that. Rorlund, for example, is introduced to us as an archPharisee, holding forth before the moral sewing-circle about the wickedness
of the 'big countries', but next he is in a duologue with Dina which shows
him drawn to her by a (presumably physical) passion which he neither
understands nor dares openly acknowledge. That passion proves useful in
the plot, especially for providing Act endings, and the line on which he bows
out of it and of the play is the most Pharisaical of all: 'So she was completely
unworthy of me.' Yet we cannot just dismiss him as a two-dimensional figure;
he keeps bothering our minds with questions about where self-delusion ends
and wilful delusion of others begins. Nor can we make an altogether clear-cut
division between the deluded and the clear-seeing, the rhetorical and obscur-
antist, on the one hand, and the fresh-air and plain-words people, on the
other; for, in the end, is not Lona Hessel the one who proves most strongly
to be seeing 'truth' through the filter of an old love which hasn't rusted and
to close the play on the most rhetorical flourish of all ?1 Bernick in particular
seems to run the whole gamut from deliberate and flagrant deceit, presented
penitence, and how much his very partial confession really represents a
victory for 'the spirit of truth and the spirit of freedom'. The figure in the
we say what we say. And of that figure, Martha's lyricism is as much a part
as is Bernick's, or Rorlund's, rhetoric.
Ibsen's texts were prepared for reading, and were always printed before
they were performed. But it is in the theatre that their life must be tested,
and for which their life was conceived. The first and still the most faithful
translator of all his plays, William Archer, knew where the life of his texts
lay: in their ability 'to make people think and see for themselves.'2
1 Lona's line in the fifth draft, 'Old love doesn't rust', is changed in the printed version to 'Old
friendship...'. In either case, the end of the play seems to wish to remind us that Lona is not an
objective judge of Bernick.
2 William Archer, 'Ibsen and English Criticism', Fortnightly Review, 46 (I July 1889), 30-37;
reprinted in Egan, p. I i9.
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:53:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms