home
lectures/booking
translations
criticism
productions
articles
e-texts
•Sophocles, Hegel and Ibsen•
biography
site map
contact

Sophocles, Hegel and Ibsen

A Perspective on A Doll’s House, Ghosts and An Enemy of the People
by Helge Salemonsen

I. A Perspective on A Doll’s House, Ghosts and An Enemy of the People

      To claim that Henrik Ibsen has been, to a certain degree, influenced by Hegel is not particularly controversial. Asbjørn Aarseth on several occasions (1) has emphasised what he thinks are significant references to Hegel’s philosophy of aesthetics and art in Peer Gynt.

Hegel’s interpretation of the meaning of the animal motives in the ancient Egypt’s religion and art coincides well with Ibsen’s poetic project Peer Gynt. If we generally read the piece’s scenes, dialogues and monologues in the light of Hegelian aesthetics, many things obtain an additional meaning. (Aarseth 2000:112)

      In her last book, Ibsens modernisme, Torild Moi also points out the influence from Hegel’s aesthetics in many of Ibsen’s plays, “either directly or through the texts of M.J. Monrad and J.L. Heiberg.”(Moi 2006: 115) Aarseth is even clearer. He refers to an article by Arne Lidén (Edda 1940): “Especially after Lidén’s analysis it is difficult to assert that Ibsen had just a superficial or indirect knowledge of Hegel’s work.”(Aarseth 1977: 186) John C. Pearce (1962: 72-77) is of the opinion that Hegelian influence is already visible in Catiline and The Pretenders.

      Many have seen that Emperor and Galilean presents a perspective on history similar to that of Hegel, even suggesting it to be directly influenced by him. Atle Kittang admits this seems indisputable”, but warns us against attaching too much importance to it, since in that case, it is only an expression of one of Ibsen’s philosophical caprices:

Most commentators have pointed out that this philosophy of history has a Hegelian character. This seems indisputable. And as said, it can also be that Ibsen himself in one of his philosophical whims may have perceived “the third empire” as his authentic contribution to the philosophy of history. But if one focuses too exclusively on this aspect of the play (and there are many who have), one runs the risk of forgetting that Emperor and Galilean is created, not by a philosophical consciousness, but by a dramatic consciousness. This entails a dramatic (if one may use that term) difference for the interpretation. (Kittang 2002: 102)

      One can hardly disagree with Atle Kittang when asserting that Emperor and Galilean was created by a “dramatic consciousness”. His insistence on the “dramatic difference” between a dramatic and a philosophical consciousness”, is less convincing. Is a dramatic consciousness really by necessity an un-philosophical consciousness? In a letter to Georg Brandes, while working with Emperor and Galilean, Ibsen warns against interpreting any moral agenda, any hidden pamphlet, any kind of edifying message into the play:

I study the characters, the conflicting plans, the history, and do not concern myself with the moral of the whole –

So far we may assume that Ibsen is expressing himself in accordance with Kittang`s taste. However, Ibsen continues:

assuming that by the moral of history you do not mean its philosophy; for that this will clearly shine forth, as the final verdict on the struggle and the victory, is a matter of course. But all this can only be made intelligible by practical application. (To Brandes, September 24th 1871)

      Ibsen claims this philosophy will “clearly shine forth” from his play. Now, Kittang may insist that these words are an expression of Ibsen’s caprice, implying that they shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But Ibsen himself was serious. His philosophical perspective is repeatedly referred to, for example in a letter to his publisher:

This book [Emperor and Galilean] will become my main work, and it occupies all my thoughts and all my time. My positive world-view [his ‘verdensanskuelse’, his Weltanschauung, i.e. his theoretical perception of the world] that my critics for such a long time have required from me, will hereby be available. (July12th1871)

1 - Cf. Dyret i mennesket. Et bidrag til tolkning av Henrik Ibsens Peer Gynt (especially pages 179-183), and the article Gåtene i Ibsens Peer Gynt (2000) and the review of Brian Johnston's’The Ibsen Cycle (Edda 1977). Aarseth ties this especially to Josef Collin’s book Henrik Ibsen. Sein Werk-seine Weltanschauung-sein Leben (1910) and Arne Lidéns article Peer Gynt i Egypten (Edda 1940).