James and Ibsen

Abstract

ideas generally. There was literally a fascination, and from the beginning it was imaginatively and emotionally associated with France. The Autobiography makes clear that from his childhood the theater was a symbol of beauty and plethora: the sense of glory incarnated in the perfection of form, James's interest was also technical: he studied the theater and tried to apply what he considered successful stage technique to the novel. He wrote extensively on the theater of his time and spent five years in his fruitless-and probably desperate-attempt to become a playwright. However derisory this effort may seem now, James took it very seriously and was passionately convinced that in the theater he had found the ultimate vehicle for self-expression. His attitude toward Ibsen is particularly interesting. His views on the dramatist illustrate his ideas on the theater at a moment when he was extremely conscious of it, just as they coincide with (or immediately precede) his search for new technique and form to correspond to his developing conception of the novel. And his criticism of Ibsen is aesthetic, a function of his own ambitious aesthetic theories. This aspect of James's work and life has been generally overlooked, though certain scholars have touched on it in passing. Francis Fergusson has maintained that James was an admirer of Ibsen. So has Leon Edel in his preface to the plays, though Mr. Edel has recently balanced this assertion by mentioning James's negative opinions in the relevant volume of the biography. In fact James's criticism is not favorable, nor even ambiguous. It is most revealing where restrictive. This is equally true with respect to an Ibsen influence. Austin Warren has written of an influence on the symbolism of James's later works. But James's symbolism is very different from Ibsen's. Many influences contribute to its imaginative complexity. As it becomes more elaborate