FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164  
165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   >>   >|  
ho never sacrifices his Self generously for another's good, nor surrenders it to a decided course of action. Diagram II. is Solveig, a woman who has no dread of self-committal, who surrenders Self and is, in short, Peer's perfect antithesis. When Peer is an outlaw she forsakes all and follows him to his hut in the forest. Peer deserts her and roams the world, where he finds his theory of Self upset by one adventure after another and at last reduced to absurdity in the madhouse at Cairo. But though his own theory is discredited, he has not yet found the true one. To find this he must be brought face to face in the last scene with his deserted wife. There, for the first time, he asks the question and receives the answer. "Where," he asks, "has Peer Gynt's true self been since we parted:-- "Where was I, as myself, as the whole man, the true man? Where was I with God's sigil upon my brow?" And Solveig answers:-- "In my faith, in my hope, in my love." In these words we have the main ethical problem solved; and Peer's _perception_ of the truth (_vide_ Mr. Wicksteed's remarks quoted above) is the one necessary climax of the poem. We do not care a farthing--at least, I do not care a farthing--whether Peer escape the Button-Moulder or not. It may be too late for him, or there may be yet time to live another life; but whatever the case may be, it doesn't alter what Ibsen set out to prove. The problem which Ibsen shirks (if indeed he does shirk it) is a subsidiary problem--a rider, so to speak. Can Solveig by her love redeem Peer Gynt? Can the woman save the man's soul? Will she, after all, cheat the Button-Moulder of his victim? The poet, by giving Solveig the last word, seems to think it possible. According to Mr. Archer, the Ibsen of to-day would know it to be impossible. He knows (none better) that "No man can save his brother's soul or pay his brother's debt." "No, nor women neither," adds Mr. Archer. Is Peer's Redemption a romantic Fallacy? But is this so? _Peer Gynt_ was published in 1867. I turn to _A Doll's House_, written twelve years later, and I find there a woman preparing to redeem a man just as Solveig prepares to redeem Peer. I find in Mr. Archer's translation of that play the following page of dialogue:-- _Mrs. Linden_: There's no happiness in working for oneself, Nils; give me somebody and something to work for. _Krogstad_: No, no; that can never be. It's simp
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164  
165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Solveig

 

redeem

 
problem
 

Archer

 

brother

 

Moulder

 

Button

 

farthing

 

surrenders

 
theory

According
 

subsidiary

 

shirks

 
victim
 
giving
 

dialogue

 

translation

 
preparing
 

prepares

 
Linden

happiness

 
Krogstad
 
working
 

oneself

 

twelve

 

impossible

 
written
 

Redemption

 

romantic

 
Fallacy

published
 

adventure

 

reduced

 

absurdity

 

madhouse

 

brought

 

deserted

 

discredited

 

deserts

 
forest

action
 
Diagram
 

decided

 

sacrifices

 

generously

 
committal
 

outlaw

 

forsakes

 

perfect

 

antithesis