Allegory, Capital, Modernity: Peer Gynt and Ibsen's Modern Breakthrough

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. The claim that Peer's imaginary flights are an effect of his incapacity to come to terms with reality has accompanied the play from its first appearance. In this connection, see the initial reviews by Georg Brandes (1916; first publ. 1867): Henrik Ibsen. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, p. 42; and Clemens Petersen (1967; first publ. 1867): Review of Peer Gynt, in Omkring Peer Gynt, ed. Otto Hageberg. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, p. 42. The charge is thereafter repeated by other important figures in the early reception of Ibsen's work, such as Bernard Shaw (1986; first publ. 1891): “The Quintessence of Ibsenism,” in The Major Critical Essays. London: Penguin Books, pp. 67; 70; and Otto Weininger (2001; first publ. 1904/1907): “Peer Gynt and Ibsen,” in On Last Things, translated by Steven Burns. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, p. 15. The influence of this view on what seems to be virtually all subsequent scholarship is testified to by its inevitable centrality in studies of all stripes. See e.g., Montrose J. Moses (1908): Henrik Ibsen. The Man and His Plays. New York: Mitchell Kennerley, pp. 211–212; J. Collin (1910): Henrik Ibsen. Sein Werk – seine Weltansachauung – sein Leben. Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, p. 267; W. Berteval (1912): Le théatre d'Ibsen. Paris: Libraire académique, pp. 113; 120; Albert Morey Sturtevant (1914): “Aase and Peer Gynt,” in Modern Language Notes, vol. 29, No. 8, p. 234; Francis Bull (1928–1957): “Innledning,” in Henrik Ibsen: Samlede Verker. Hundreårsutgave, vols. 1–21, edited by Francis Bull, Halvdan Koht and Didrik Aarup Seip. Oslo: Gyldendal Forlag, vol. 6, pp. 16; 31–33; P. J. Eikeland (1934): Ibsen Studies. Northfield Minnesota: The St. Olaf College Press, pp. 21–24; Tore Linge (1935): La conception de l'amour dans le drame de Dumas fils et d'Ibsen. Paris: Libraire ancienne honoré champion, p. 59; Victor Pérez Petit (1943): “Henrik Ibsen,” in Los modernistas. Obras Completas, vol. 7. Montevideo: Claudio Garcia y Cia, pp. 130–131; Aril Haaland (1967): “Hva slags menneske var Peer Gynt?,” in Omkring Peer Gynt, ed. Otto Hageberg, op. cit., pp. 155–156; Daniel Haakonsen (1967): Henrik Ibsens Peer Gynt. Oslo: Nordisk Forlag, p. 43; Maurice Gravier (1973): Ibsen. Paris: Éditions Seghers, pp. 87–88; Asbjørn Aarseth (1975): Dyret i Mennesket. Et bidrag til tolkningen av Henrik Ibsens Peer Gynt. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 77; 171–172; 175; Brian W. Downs (1978): A Study of Six Plays by Ibsen. New York: Octagon Books, pp. 96–98; Rolf Fjelde (1980): “Foreword,” in Henrik Ibsen: Peer Gynt, translated by Rolf Fjelde. Second Edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. xvi; Patricia Merivale (1983): “Ibsen's Faustiad,” in Comparative Literature, vol. 35, No. 2, p. 137; Franco Perelli (1988): Introduzione a Ibsen. Roma: Editori Laterza, pp. 42–43; Knut Brynhildsvoll (1988): Studien zum Werk und Werkeinfluss Henrik Ibsens. Leverkusen: Literaturverlag Norden Mark Reinhardt, pp. 66; 69; 71–72; Erik M. Christensen (1989): Henrik Ibsen's anarkisme: de samlede værker. Bind 1. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, pp. 147; 165; Marilyn Johns Blackwell (1990): “Spatial Images in Peer Gynt: Ibsen's Inversion of the Feminine Redemptive,” in, vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 881–886; Alberto Alonge (1995): Ibsen. L'opera e la fortuna scenica. Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, p. 36; Joan Templeton (1997): Ibsen's Women. Cambridge University Press, pp. 92; 107; Alberto Boccardi (1999): La donna nell'opera di Henrik Ibsen. Istituto Giuliano di storia, cultura e documentazione, p. 36; Egil Wyller (1999): Et enhetssyn på Ibsen. Fra Brand til Når vi døde vågner. Oslo: Spartacus, p. 59; Frode Helland (2000): “Om Peer Gynt, med stadig henblikk på begrepet dramatisk ironi,” in Agora, No. 1, p. 11. To my knowledge, the only study to date that in any sustained way seeks to challenge this binary opposition of reality and imagination and Peer's unproblematic equation with the latter, is Sara Jan's recent article (2004): “Peer Gynt and the Dialogic Imagination,” in Ibsen Studies, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 40–54. 2. See, e.g., Georg Brandes: op. cit., pp. 42–43; Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1967; first publ. 1867): Review of Peer Gynt, in Omkring Peer Gynt, ed. Otto Hageberg, op. cit., p. 38; Bernard Shaw: op. cit., p. 69; Otto Weininger, op. cit., pp. 4–5; 8; Edmund Gosse (1907): Henrik Ibsen. New York: Charles Scribener's Sons, pp. 107–108, Francis Bull: op. cit., pp. 35; 39; P. J. Eikeland: op. cit., pp. 26–28; 42–43; Tore Linge: op. cit., p. 57; J. Collin: op. cit., p. 267; Asbjørn Aarseth: op. cit., pp. 43–44; 71; 141; 170; 198; 207; 216; Franco Perelli: op. cit., p. 45; Alberto Boccardi: op. cit., p. 37; Brian W. Downs: op. cit., pp. 89–91; Montrose J. Moses: op. cit., pp. 223–224; W. Berteval: op. cit., pp. 116; 128–129; Marilyn Johns Blackwell: op. cit., pp. 881–882; Maurice Gravier: pp. 90–91; Espen Hammer (2000): “Fornektelse, trauma og subjektdannelse i Ibsens Peer Gynt,” in Agora, No. 1, pp 54–55; Erik Østerud (2000): “Peer Gynts ‘overganger’,” in Agora, No. 1, pp. 78–79; 84–85; Xie Lanlan (2005): “Peer Gynt's Female World,” in Ibsen Studies, vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pp. 172; 174; 176; 178; Bruce Shapiro (1990): Divine Madness and the Absurd Paradox. Ibsen's Peer Gynt and the Philosophy of Kierkegaard. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 24–25; 199–200; Trond O. Larsen (1990): Peer Gynt og Brand: en ny fortolkning. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, pp. 16; 33–34; 156–157; Cándido Pérez Gállego (1990): Para leer a Henrik Ibsen. (Ibsen. Inventor del teatro actual). Madrid: Palas Atenea, p. 55; and Rolf Fjelde: op. cit., pp. xviii–xx. It should be noted, however, that two important alternate lines of argumentation exist in the reception of Peer Gynt. One of these tends to view Peer as a national hero of sorts, and accordingly argues that his flights of fancy must be read as a positive attribute. The other, predominantly feminist in inclination, rejects the view of Solvejg as an ideal. However, while these alternative interpretations may well invert the evaluation of the terms involved in the standard view, they are nevertheless merely derivatives of the latter, insofar as they remain caught in the same interpretative logic. They do so, on the one hand, by retaining the binary opposition between reality and Peer's imagination, and, on the other, by insisting, as does the standard view, that Peer and Solvejg must be read as terms on a single value scale. Thus, the readings that seek to view Peer's character in positive terms simply celebrate his escapism by claiming it to be worthy of Solvejg's love, thereby aligning it with the positive values of the latter's ideality (see, e.g. Egil Wyller: op. cit., pp. 54–55; 59; 61; Erik M. Christensen: op. cit., pp. 153–154; 166–167; 171; and Daniel Haakonsen: op. cit., pp. 50–54). Likewise, rejections of Peer's final salvation on the grounds that Solvejg does in fact not represent a valid ideal just seek to undermine the validity of the heroine by claiming that she too is a product of Peer's imagination, thereby inversely subjecting her to the negative criteria of Peer's escapism (see, e.g. Marylin Johns Blackwell: op. cit., p. 887; Joan Templeton: op. cit., pp. 101; 107; and, in modified form, Frode Helland: op. cit., p. 41). The common presupposition structuring all these interpretations is thus the opposition of reality and imagination, the differences being merely a product of whether the ideal embodied by Solvejg is viewed as continuous with the former (the standard view), or the latter (the derivative positions). 3. The question of Peer Gynt's position in the overall evolution of Ibsen's oeuvre cannot be discussed in detail here. However, as I have suggested elsewhere (Leonardo F. Lisi [2007]: “Kierkegaard and the Problem of Ibsen's Form,” in Ibsen Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 225), the novelty of this text in this regard lies in the way it signals a radical break with the aesthetics of J. L. Heiberg that largely dominate Ibsen's poetics up until that point. I have discussed Heiberg's aesthetics at greater length in my article (2008): “Heiberg and the Drama of Modernity,” in Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Philosopher, Littérateur, Dramaturge, and Political Thinker, edited by Jon Stewart. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, 2008, pp. 421–448. 4. That Aase is frequently the explicit source of the standard view is visible in the fact that her description of Peer is repeatedly referred to for critical support. See e.g., Georg Brandes: op. cit., p. 45; Clemens Petersen: op. cit., p. 42; Aril Haaland: op. cit., p. 155; P. J. Eikeland: op. cit., pp. 23–24; Tore Linge: op. cit., p. 57; Franco Perelli: op. cit., pp 42–43; Brian W. Downs: op. cit., p.97; Montrose J. Moses: op. cit., p. 215; Maurice Gravier: op. cit., p. 87; Daniel Haakonsen: op. cit., pp. 44–45; Erik M. Christensen: op. cit., pp. 146–147; 165; and Rolf Fjelde: op. cit., p. xxi. 5. English version as found in Henrik Ibsen: Peer Gynt, translated by Rolf Fjelde, op. cit., p. 43; Norwegian original in Henrik Ibsen: Peer Gynt, in Samlede Verker, op. cit., vol. 6, pp. 89–90. All subsequent references to Peer Gynt will be indicated first by page reference to the Fjelde translation, followed by a comma, after which the page number to this edition and volume of the complete works in Norwegian will be given. I have silently modified Fjelde's translation whenever necessary. 6. Much has been made of the fact that Ibsen wrote Peer Gynt as a “dramatic poem” not intended for performance (see his letter to Passarge, August 17, 1881, in Samlede Verker, op. cit., vol. 17, p. 435). This does not imply, however, that the genre Ibsen draws on dispenses with the performative dimension of drama. Rather, as with all closet dramas, much of the effect of Peer Gynt depends on the tension between performance and textuality. Related to this point, see also Marylin Johns Blackwell: op. cit., p. 879. 7. See, Roland Barthes: “The Reality Effect,” in The Rustle of Language, translated by Richard Howard. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 141–147. 8. The examples of such repetitions, both diegetic and mimetic in nature, are numerous, and only a few more will be indicated here: 3, 59 and 51, 96 and 58, 103; 56–57, 101–102 and 111, 149; 56, 101 and 113, 152; 84, 115 and 170–171, 205 and 182, 216. For a different discussion of the uses of such repetitions, see also Brian Johnston (1980): To the Third Empire: Ibsen's Early Drama. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 185–186. 9. See Ibsen's letter to Hegel, August 8, 1867 (Samlede Verker, op. cit., vol. 16, pp. 185–186). The relevant passages from Asbjørnsen can be found in: P. Chr. Asbjørnsen, and Jørgen Moe (1940): Samlede Eventyr, vol. 1, pp. 328–353. 10. Paul de Man (1983):“The Rhetoric of Temporality,” in Blindness and Insight. Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. Second Edition, revised. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 207; 209. 11. The centrality of allegory in Peer Gynt was noted as early as in Clemens Petersen's 1867 review (op. cit., p. 46), but has, to my knowledge, so far not received any sustained attention in the secondary literature. 12. Franco Moretti (1996): Modern Epic. The World‐System from Goethe to García Márquez. Translated by Quintin Hoare. London and New York: Verso, pp. 84; 83. 13. The rhyme, of course, does not translate into English, for which reasons only references to the Norwegian text are given. 14. As a poetic pattern, its frequency thus by far exceeds that of the “animal” images, which Aarseth in his influential study takes to constitute the central archetype of the play on the basis of the approximately 90 appearances of it that he finds (Asbjørn Aarseth: Dyret i mennesket, op. cit., p. 60). The following references indicate first the page number followed by the times economic allusions appear on each. Given the linguistic specificity of these instances, only the Norwegian references will be provided: 64: 4; 65: 2; 67: 1; 68: 2; 69: 1; 70: 1; 74: 7; 76: 2; 83: 1; 85: 1; 95: 3; 96: 4; 97: 6; 99: 1; 101: 2; 105: 1; 106: 2; 110: 2; 111: 2; 115: 2; 116: 1; 117: 2; 118: 3; 121: 1; 124: 2; 125: 1; 130: 1; 131: 1; 135: 2; 136: 2; 137: 2; 139: 2; 140: 2; 141: 2; 143: 3; 144: 3; 145: 3; 148: 2; 151: 1; 153: 5; 155: 1; 169: 1; 170: 1; 188: 1; 189: 5; 190: 5; 191: 2; 192: 1; 193: 1; 194: 1; 200: 1; 203: 1; 204: 1; 205: 4; 207: 6; 209: 2; 219: 6; 220: 1; 222: 2; 223: 4; 224: 4; 226: 1; 227: 5; 230: 1; 232: 4; 233: 4; 234: 1; 237: 4; 241: 2. 15. To my knowledge there is no evidence that Ibsen ever read Marx or vice versa. A comparison of the two is thus presumably best grounded either on a shared awareness of a common socio‐historical situation, or on the fact that both, as is particularly visible in Peer Gynt, were responding to Goethe's Faust. As regards the similarities between Goethe's allegory and Marx's theory of value, Schlaffer explains it by claiming that Goethe at the time of writing Faust II was engaged in an extensive study of many of the same economists Marx would draw on later (Heinz Schlaffer [1981]: Faust zweiter Teil. Die Allegorie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, pp. 54–55). This claim, however, has been refuted by Jens Kruse on historical grounds (Jens Kruse [1985]: Der Tanz der Zeichen. Poetische Struktur und Geschichte in Goethes Faust II. Meisenheim: Verlag Anton Hain, pp. 82–83, n. 108). Moretti in turn offers the inverse and perhaps more suggestive possibility of Marx coming to his theory of exchange value by reading Faust II (Franco Moretti: Modern Epic, op. cit., p. 79). 16. Karl Marx (2005): Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Köln: Parkland Verlag, p. 51. All translations from Marx are my own. 17. Ibid., p. 52. 18. Ibid., p. 58. 19. Ibid., p. 53. 20. Ibid., p. 62. 21. Ibid., p. 65. 22. Ibid., p. 76. 23. Ibid., pp. 82–83. 24. Ibid., p. 86. 25. Paul de Man: op. cit., p. 207. 26. Cited in Heinz Schlaffer: op. cit., p.58; my translation. 27. Michel Foucault (1994): The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books, p. 244. 28. In these terms, Moretti's critique of Schlaffer in Modern Epic seems misplaced. According to Moretti, Schlaffer's reading of Marx's theory of exchange value in terms of the structure of allegory fails since to Marx, “commodities can be exchanged because they are qualitatively different, and quantitatively equal: in the semantic field, however, there is no way of reproducing the distinction between quantity and quality. Again, for Marx, the equivalence between commodities rests upon the equal quantities of labour embodied in them: but, once more, the idea of embodied labour has no meaning in the realm of allegory. And if this falls, the labour theory of value falls too, as does that of the fetishism of commodities. In other words, the whole of Marx's theory (whether right or wrong) collapses, and only analogies of formulation remain” (Modern Epic, op. cit., p. 80). The assumption that nothing corresponding to embodied labour (understood as the abstract, average labour required for the production of any commodity) can be found in semantics, would seem to have to rest on a disavowal of any underlying structure of language‐in‐general. The very idea of allegory, however (and whether right or wrong), requires precisely such an underlying structure if it is taken to consist in the relation between two distinct signs made possible by means of a mediating relation of some sort (whether the relation of tradition that motivates signs positively, or the negative relation of pure difference inherent in the system of language‐as‐such that the non‐coincidence of terms reveals). If both signs and commodities thus have use‐values that assure the uniqueness of each entity (the qualitatively different), qua commodities and signs they likewise participate in a system of relations that exceeds their particularity and makes their relation to other entities possible in the first place and prior to any particular manifestation (the quantitatively equivalent). The point, in fact, is emphasized by none less than Ferdinand de Saussure himself: “Here [in linguistics] as in political economy we are confronted with the notion of value; both sciences are concerned with a system for equating things of different orders – labor and wages in one and a signified and signifier in the other” (Ferdinand de Saussure [1966]: Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, p. 79). See also ibid., p. 115, where de Saussure fruitfully expands on the analogy and points out that all values (linguistic as economic), “are always composed (1) of a dissimilar thing that can be exchanged for the thing of which the value is to be determined [the qualitatively different]; and (2) of similar things that can be compared with the thing of which the value is to be determined [the quantitatively equal].” 29. The semantics of the English, German and French are clear. The Swedish contains “trumpet,” and “stråle,” which can be translated as “ray,” “gush,” or “spray,” and, according to Aarseth, is a play on the more obviously satirically named character “Bombenundgranatenstråle” in Wergeland's opera Stockholmsfareren (Asbjørn Aarseth [1993]: “Komentar,” in Henrik Ibsen: Peer Gynt. Et dramatisk dikt. Kommentarutgave ved Asbjørn Aarseth. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, p. 209). Johnston sums up their allegorical meaning as: “Teutonic aggression, Anglo‐Saxon philistine mercantilism, French chauvinism, and Scandinavian pusillanimity” (Brian Johnston: op. cit., p. 193). 30. Heinz Schlaffer: op. cit, p. 61. 31. The new abstract nature of reality is emphasized in Master Cotton's exclamation when he realizes that Peer will not aid the Greek struggle for independence: “We've lost the most financially [det reelle]. /Goddamn! So help me, I could cry! /I saw Olympus all my own; /And if that mountain's what they say/There ought to be some copper mines/Still reworkable today. /And the Castalia, that stream/That's talked about so much, with all/It's falls – an engineer could pull/Some thousand horsepower out of them –” (106, 144). Fjelde's translation – as those by Archer (Henrik Ibsen [1913]: Peer Gynt. The Collected Works of Henrik Ibsen, volume IV, translated by William and Charles Archer. New York: Charles Scribener's Sons, p. 138), Fry (Henrik Ibsen [1972]: Peer Gynt. The Oxford Ibsen, volume III, English version by Chistopher Fry on a literal translation by Johan Fillinger. London: Oxford University Press, p. 337), McGuinness (Henrik Ibsen [1990]: Peer Gynt, a new version by Frank McGuinness, from a literal translation by Anne Bamborough. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, p. 57), and Northam (Henrik Ibsen [1995]: Peer Gynt, translated by John Northam. Boston: Scandinavian University Press, p. 85) – loses the pun in the first line, where “reelle” carries not only the financial signification of “material goods,” but, more importantly, that of “reality” (that which is “real,” “virkelig,” “faktisk,” “håndgripelig,” according to the Norsk riksmålsordbok [Trygve Knudsen et al. (1930): Norsk riksmålsordbok, Oslo: Aschehoug, p. 1010]). Master Cotton's reduction of the Greek mythological geography to a landscape of commodities is thus in tune with the play's larger allegorical structure and the relation of that allegory to the new world system that constitutes reality. When further considering that according to Eric Hobsbawm the industrial revolution's takeoff depended on the cotton industry (Eric Hobsbawm [1996]: The Age of Revolution. 1789–1848. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 33–37) and that in the span from 1850–1860, i.e. the decade immediately preceding the composition of Peer Gynt, the cotton export almost doubled (Eric Hobsbawm [1996]: The Age of Capital. 1848–1875. New York: Vintage Books, p. 30), the significance of the fact that Master Cotton should be the one to make this observation can hardly be ignored. 32. David Quint (1993): Epic and Empire. Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 34; 41; 46. In this respect too, Peer Gynt reveals the influence of Goethe; see Reinhart Koselleck (1993): “Goethes unzeitgemäße Geschichte,” in Goethe Jahrbuch, Band 110, pp. 35–36; and Patricia Merivale: op. cit., p. 133. 33. David Quint (2003): Cervantes's Novel of Modern Times. A New Reading of Don Quijote. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 106–107; see also Epic and Empire, op. cit., pp. 266–267; 282. 34. See, e.g., Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson: op. cit., p. 35; Clemens Petersen: op. cit., p. 44; Otto Weininger: op. cit., p. 8; Aril Haaland: op. cit., pp. 155–157; Tore Linge: op. cit., p. 59; Knut Brynhildsvoll: op. cit., pp. 67; 72; Michael Meyer (1971): Ibsen. A Biography. New York: Doubleday, pp. 272–273; P. J. Eikeland: op. cit., p. 30; Franco Perelli: op. cit., p. 43; Brian W. Downs: op. cit., p. 80; Montrose J. Moses: op. cit., pp. 216; 220; Marylin Johns Blackwell: op. cit., p. 882; Xie Lanlan: op. cit., pp. 172; 175; Maurice Gravier: op. cit., pp. 89–90; Asbjørn Aarseth: Dyret i mennesket, op. cit., p. 111; Espen Hammer: op. cit., pp. 47; 52; Trondo O. Larsen: op. cit., p. 59; and Erik M. Christensen: op. cit., pp. 154; 156; 159. To my knowledge, the only critic who is rightfully aware of the difficulty of such an equation is Frode Helland: op. cit., pp. 32–35. 35. Asbjørn Aarseth gives an extensive summary of past interpretations of the trolls, which confirms his own assessment of their significance as one of, amongst other things, “evil,” “the opposite of ‘Christian values’,” and “the dark forces in man” (Dyret i mennesket, op. cit., pp. 100–125). See also P. J. Eikeland: op. cit., p. 30; Xie Lanlan: op. cit., p. 174; Espen Hammer: op. cit., p. 49; Trondo O. Larsen: op. cit., pp. 70–72; Egil Wyller: op. cit., p. 62; Knut Brynhildsvoll: op. cit., p. 72; and Rolf Fjelde: op. cit., pp. xvii–xviii. 36. For a related reading of the madhouse scene, see also Frode Helland: op. cit., pp. 35–36. 37. That Solvejg is to be read in terms of a flight from reality is also argued by Marilyn Johns Blackwell (op. cit., p. 884), although in terms unrelated to the present analysis. 38. Vladimir Propp (1968): Morphology of the Folktale. Second Edition. Translated by Laurence Scott, revised by Louis A. Wagner. Austin and London: University of Texas Press, p. 30. 39. Ibid. 40. Vladimir Propp: Ibid., p. 39. 41. Ibid., p. 55. 42. Ibid., p. 56. 43. Ibid., p. 57. 44. Ibid., p. 21. 45. Ibid., p. 22. 46. Ibid., p. 23. 47. This function of the fairy‐tale genre has also been emphasized by Franco Moretti in relation to the nineteenth century novel (Franco Moretti [1999]: Atlas of the European Novel. 1800–1900. London and New York: Verso, p. 72). 48. The importance of the systematic neglect of Act four by critics has been fruitfully discussed by Elizabeth Oxfeldt, who emphasizes it from the perspective of Postcolonial criticism (Elizabeth Oxfeldt [2005]: Nordic Orientalism. Paris and the Cosmopolitan Imagination 1800–1900. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 133–141). 49. For a recent instance of the former claim, see Toril Moi (2006): Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism. Art, Theater, Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 9, et passim; and for the latter, Frode Helland (2000): Melankoliens Spill. En studie i Henrik Ibsens siste dramaer. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 13–14. 50. I have explored what I take to be the central features of Ibsen's mature poetics in this respect in my article: “Kierkegaard and the Problem of Ibsen's Form,” op. cit.