Iconoclasts: A Book of Dramatists: Ibsen, Strindberg, Becque, Hauptmann, Sudermann, Hervieu, Gorky, Duse and D'Annunzio, Maeterlinck and Bernard ShawHuneker, James
History
Iconoclasts: A Book of Dramatists: Ibsen, Strindberg, Becque, Hauptmann, Sudermann, Hervieu, Gorky, Duse and D'Annunzio, Maeterlinck and Bernard Shaw
Huneker, James
Dramatists; European drama -- 19th century -- History and criticism; European drama -- 20th century -- History and criticism
Octave Uzanne wrote, "People the orchestra and galleries of a theatre
with a thousand Renans and a thousand Herbert Spencers, and the
combination of these two thousand brains of genius will not produce
aught but the soul of a _concierge_."
So much for the power of collectivity. This theme which Gustave Le Bon
has treated in The Mob and The Psychology of the Peoples--literally
a drag-net psychology--? may be found lucidly discussed in Mr. A. B.
Walkley's Dramatic Criticism. The modern audience, he says, is no
longer a great baby, like the mediæval one, but an intelligent adult.
"On this crowd depends our future hopes of the stage."
With all the authorities, apologists, and panegyrists, Ibsen remains
a difficult nut to crack. His perversities of execution, aberrations
in sentiment, contrarieties, and monumental obstinacy are too much for
the average commentator's nerves--why, then, should he be enjoyed by
the public when doctors of the drama disagree? His warmest admirers
deny him the gift of humour, but we believe that he is the greatest
humorist, as well as dramatist, of the nineteenth century. No man,
not even Browning, has kept such rigid features in the very face of
idiotic abuse and still more silly praise. Not a sense of humour!
After A Doll's House came Ghosts, totally contravening the thesis, or
supposed thesis, of that problem play; after Ghosts, An Enemy of the
People, which declared for the rights of the individual; after this
piece the maddening and angular ironies of The Wild Duck, in which he
mocks himself, his theories; and then as if to explode the whole Ibsen
mine, Rosmersholm appeared. Therein the reformer, whether idealist
or of the ordinary peddling political stripe, is mercilessly flayed,
and Rebekka West, his wonderful incarnation of passion, deceits,
femininity, and renunciation, sacrifices her life to a false ideal,
to "Rosmersholm ideals," and mocks herself as she joins in the double
suicide. No humour! What, then, of Hedda Gabler, the young woman of
to-day; shallow-cultured, her religious underpinning gone, vacillating,
cerebral, all nerves full of a Bashkirtseff-like charm, this Hedda
who is so modern, who peeps over moral precipices, shudders and peeps
again--what preconceived theories of Ibsen did Hedda _not_ upset?
Followed the fantastic Master Builder, Little Eyolf, John Gabriel
Borkman, and When We Dead Awake, each mutually destructive of what we
supposed Ibsen stood for, destructive of the fumbling decadent that
spite depicts him. Not a humorist! Why, Aristophanes, Jonathan Swift,
Dumas _fils_, and Calvin (who was fond of roasting his religious foes)
rolled into one is about the happiest formula we can express for the
tense-lipped old humorist of Norway!
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account