Abstract
There are several of these correspondences, some, as Ellis Roberts remarks (p. X) mere parallelisms, some with a deeper meaning: “These hints as it were of a dream-life, help the unity of the play tremendously”. J. Collin (Henrik Ibsen p. 321) comparing in the same way the gigantic pig with the horse of 1. 2459 that is to carry him to Anitra remarks that both lead Peer Gynt “in ein Abenteuer hinein das.... mit seiner tiefsten Entwürdi-gung und Beschämung endet.” (cf. n. to 1. 994).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Curiously enough the hit on Brun was, to some extent at least, one on his own former self, for Ibsen had been one of the bards that had received “an order for a song” which he sneers at in the Epic Brand where he calls Norway: “et Folk af Kæm-per og Kæmpinder naar Skalden har Bestilling paa en Sang” for he had more than once written such a song by order with the selfsame theme (we might almost say: to the selfsame tune!) of Brun’s celebrated outburst (Eft. Skr. I, p. LXVII).
In reality, Vinje was not so exclusive as his opponents tried to make out; cf. Vetle Vislie, A. O. Vinje, p. 323.
By the side of the fuller expressions: faen salte mig, faen plugge mig (Hul-dreeventyr p. 165); Faen æte mig (Gjengangere, F, VI, 353), fanden gale mig, fanden rive mig (Samfundets Støtter, first draft, Eft. Skr. II, 280, 303) and cf. Wergeland, S. S. VI, 449: dat skal F—hakke mig bli Lögn, det ! ib. jeg er F—dands’ i mig ingen Nar, jeg, etc., we find similar imprecations: tordne mig, klinke mig (Huldreev, p. p. 292, 296) etc., where the subject omitted may be either Katten or fanden.
Remember the modern Norw. han bryr sig katten om, han gir katten i, which Brynildsen2 compares to Eng. a deal he cares about, where deal stands of course for devil; further: Feilberg, II, 105a: detma ækat ved; ib. 106a:fy for katten = fy for fanden; det var katens = det var som pokker, Feilberg, Tillæg, p. 255; För ta mig katten, da jag var i gästabud för några dar, Sv. Landsm., 1904, p. 128; en så beslutsam min som om han gav sig Katten på at…. (Eje, George Kessers Generalkupp, p. 52; A Katten! = oh the deuce! ib. p. 187 and besides heaps of instances in Rector Munthe’s paper.
For satan is often popularly pronounced with a second syllable as stressless as that in Katten [’satan,’ satn:’ katen,’ katn] which strong stress on the first syllable helps to explain the colloquial: det var sytten = det var faen.
As they had possibly influenced the poet’s son of whom the story goes that he said when a little boy of the Swedish “whom father does not like” that he would scratch their eyes out, “for I have something of a troll in me too — thi der er ogsaa trold i mig, du!” Vilhelm Bergsøe, Henrik Ibsen paa Ischia, p. 238.
Dr. Western, approving of the above explanation, adds that he looks upon it as simply a sort of euphemism for: fanden klore mig and adds Søren to the names for the devil that I have mentioned: Det var da Søren, and: Søren snuse mig, fanden ta mig.
A correspondent explains the s of hersens as owing to analogy with (denne) fan-dens (Peer), (denne) Pokkers (fyr), hersen having been felt as an equivalent of these words. He remarks that it is of course only used in a degrading sense and that it would e. g. never do to praise a man by such a collocation as: denne hersens Frithjof Nansen ! Hence ‚pestilent’; and ‚maudite’ are “not far from the mark”, which opinion I would query thus: are these expressions not far too strong for the Norwegian word which after all is but the exact equivalent of: this’ ere fellow, — which no one would equate with: that pestilent fellow.
One is reminded of Maeterlinck’s delicious Blue Bird, where the poet has however substituted the turning of a diamond for the cut in the eye to produce the radical changes. As to the expression itself, an example of modern application may be welcome: see Professor Gran’s Norsk Aandsliv i hundrede Aar, where, speaking (p. 30) of the hatred Ibsen often felt for his fatherland, the author writes: Norge — det var Dovregubbens hal, — der skulde et snit i øiet til for at bli blind for dets hæslighet og jammerlighet.”
Hartland in his Science of Fairy Tales gives similar stories concerning the remarkable working of the magic ointment; cf. e. g. p. p. 60, 216 and his Fairy Tales, p. 92, the result we might express in the well-known words: “Fair is foul and foul is fair” for, as in the case of Peer Gynt (n. to 1.1. 987 seqq.) o, ye powers of Fairy land, what a change was there ! The neat but homely cottage…. seemed to undergo a mighty transformation. The mother and one babe were remarkably beautified (if no modern Hamlet thinks the word vile !) whilst on the other hand two children looked a couple of flat-nosed imps with long ears and hairy paws. About Ibsen’s own treatment of a similar motif in his Gildet paa Solhoug, see Fred-erik Paasche’s monograph on that drama, p. p. 72, 73, 95, 96, 97. An amusing story of one’s eyesight being corrupted, the well-known tale bears witness to of a girl who is seen to lift up her dress exceedingly high, because she “sees” the water rising so much that she can only wade through it in this way. Of many versions I quote one in H. and E. Folkminnen, 1907 p. 409. As to the closely related motif of becoming “synsk”, the getting of second sight already mentioned in the text, is “as easy as lying”. You have only to look through something round, — “when you look through a keyring, you can see all you like” (As-bjornsen, No. Folkeev. ed. 1914, p. 62, Røderev og Askeladden, and see Prof. Nyrop excellent paper “Kludetræet” in Dania, I,1, seqq. as well as a paper in the Dutch periodical Groot-Nederland (1916, March) Or if you are born on a Sunday or have found a four-leaved clover, you can see hidden persons though they cannot see you (Hul-dreev. 1912p. 287, Makreldorg). And of course, if you are so clever as to get hold of the troll-monster’s only eye (Trollene i Hedalsskogen, Udv. AEventyr, I. p. 22; Klei-ven, I garnie daagaa, p. 18) you can see everything too. Compare further Feilberg, Ordb. in v. v. angermus, dø, hoved, hulaget, se, synsk; id., Dania, II, 108; Sjæletro, p. 66; Jul, II, 51; Olafsen, I garnie dage, Bergen, Floor, 1908, p. 151: a sketch, called den Fremsynte and of course Jonas Lie’s book of that name.
J. Collin speaks curiously enough (p. 305) of “die nie zur Tat gewordenen Ausgeburten seiner sündigen Gedanken”, but then, for J. Collin, all this is but a dream; p. p. 306, 307, 313: “alles nur Hexentrug!” Just like he thinks the Boyg-scene a dream too, probably through a wrong interpretation of 1. 3029:1 lay in a fever! See then, to 1. 1217.
For the priest’s cow-bells, compare a quotation from Djurklou, which I cannot now verify, in Mannhardt, Baumkultus der Germanen2, p. 130 n.
In the language of the sea-laps, a priest’ s name was “sidkofte”, on the principle of taboo; cf. n. to 1. 2310; M. og M. 1909, p. 89.
Oliver Herford, the Mythological Zoo.
In many stories (such as in Gullslottet i havet apud Løland p. 157, from Vang, Gamla reglo aa rispo fra Valdres) there is one of the three sisters “that rule over all the birds that fly in the air” but it is doubtful whether this lady is related to ours.
To this form supplied by a Norwegian correspondent, Dr. Western appends the remark that he does not know any such forms, adding: “Lud is often used: han var litt lut = he was a little crooked, stooping; the verb is lute = to stoop…. So, instead of lud we might say ludende.
Dr. Western tells me of an other means: that of becoming a bailiff’s servant (lensmands dreng). This means was utilised by the bailiffs in this way: when such a post was vacant, they advertised it like another post: a rich young man then might present himself as an applicant and paid the bailiff a certain sum (say 500 kroner) to get the post. He then gave it up paying a poor young fellow to do the work for him. Dr. Western has often seen these advertisements in the newspapers and thinks the trick may still be practised.
“When the Stiêns of Kambodja asked pardon of the beast they killed and offered sacrifice as expiation, they expressly did so through fear lest the creatures’ disembodied souls should come and torment them”. (Tylor, Primitive Culture).
Passarge introduces words foreign alike to the letter and to the spirit of the original, such as dräng and faux pas into his text (Reclam ed. p. 80) which he has no right to do, omits lines and adds others (cf. p. p. 81, 83 and 87) and omits expressions that puzzle him (p. 85); cf. n. to 1.1. 1515 and 1541.
See his Adam Homo, 9 Sang, II p. 181: den Rög, den Dampmaskine-Stöi, Der producerer mig det Jern — og Bomuldstöi, Hvormed til Lands og Vands, jeg over-svömmer Verden. Vinje had followed and afterwards Bjørnson; cf. Chr. Collin, Björn-stjerne Bjørnson, I, 272, II, 372, 3.
For the sj(ɛrfant) due to what has been called phonetic anticipation, compare the spelling sjersanten: “Farvel i Huus! Sjersanten staaer og raaber: Kom!” Claus Frimann, No. Digtere by Nordahl Rolfsen.
Dr. Western doubts if it was ever used in Norwegian.
Bekendter (perhaps nothing but a nonce-word and a slavish imitation of German: ein Bekannter) and fejler are so rare that Dr. Western does not remember ever hearing them. And Publikummer, also used jokingly only, seems to belong to quite a different category as it seems formed (in the sense of: a person belonging to, forming part of, the public) on the pattern of en bergenser, en drammenser etc.
I leave this as it stands and give my readers the benefit of a marginal note by a correspondent whose explanation some may prefer to the above suggestion: „I do not think that the form Kulier, beduiner are originally plurals used as singulars. They are ethnological names formed on the pattern of en russer, en tysker, en perser etc. and have been felt as a singular“. (Note the important concession that en Kulier is an ethnological name, so the singular is recognised implicitly here just as explicitly in what follows:) „From a Norwegian point of view en kulier, en beduiner may be said to be as good as en kuli, en beduin etc. The latter forms are due not to any better conception of the difference between singular and plural, but to a better knowledge of foreign languages“. (We may here ask: a better knowledge of the language from which kuli is taken? Does the form occur outside Ibsen’s works?) “Mark that we still say en beduinerhøvding where the first part of the compound is singular since we don’t have compounds with the first part in the plural (except blomsterhandel,-pike, etc.) Compare also the still common form soldaterhjem, for which soldathjem is now getting into use”. As to my conclusion it is comfortable to find that my opponent reaches it too if by an other road for he ends his communication by saying that of course Kulier should have been left alone. — Q. E. D.-
Passarge makes it into the spurs that he had lost at Bender, simply because verloren is such a convenient word when one has to rhyme on spoten. —He is followed by Mrs. Clant van der Mijll who, as her translation was not meant to be rhymed, had not even this excuse.
According to Vesle Vislie (A. O. Vinje, p. 204 seqq.), Vinje wrote his „Olaf Digre“ a t and against Kongsemnerne and its teaching.
Dr. Western suggests that it „may not be amiss to point out that forloren in the sense of „false“ has been developed out of the literal sense in this way: it was first used in the phrase „forlorent haar“, hair that has been lost in combing; this „lost hair“ was used to make false curls and buckles of and so came to mean false hair. Then it was also used of false teeth: forlorne tænder and so the sense false, mock was established. We have not only forloren skildpadde but also forloren venlighet, forloren sorg, forloren ydmyghet, and the like”. Cf. forloren høitidelighet, Gran, Bjørn-stjerne Bjørnson, p. 56.
A similar explanation to be found in Poestion2, § 136 has been mysteriously omitted in the 3d edition. Dr. Western observing that this use of han is quite obsolete in spoken Norwegian, suggests that the sentences may be „asides“ that Peer speaks to himself. I must leave the decision to others but would urge that the point, at least a point — Peer’s obsequiousness when in a fix! — is thus lost.
This work, Clavicula Salomonis, treating of the „halbe Höllenbrut“ that the poodle makes Faust think of (Studierzimmer; Faust ed. Witkowski, 1. 1258, ib. II, p. 222), raises the king to the dignity of a first-class sorcerer; cf. Feilberg III, p. 146 in v. Salomon. Professor H. Gollancz (after a short newspaper notice) in his edition (1903) would seem to attribute the authorship to the king himself which undoubtedly seems surprising in view of the piety that characterises this „godly“ book (Witkowski). This is the „trolldoms-bok“ of Solomon that Moltke Moe speaks of in the Samtiden for 1908 p. 34. It is sad to think that the royal sorcerer is thought to have fallen so low as to become a — freemason, — the world’s first freemason it is true, (See Eva Wickström, Folktro, p. 363: Kung Salerno…. var världens förste frimurare.) but still…. ! For when a man is once called a “frimurare” he is lost.
The influence of Shakespeare on Ibsen I find touched upon in Professor Chr. Collin’s paper: „Shakespeare and the Norwegian drama“ in „A book of homage to Shakespeare“ that the Clarendon Press has just issued. Of Ibsen’s plays Collin mentions (cf. p. 499) in passing: the Pretenders, Fru Inger af Østrat, Emperor and Galilæan; it is only apropos of one play or even one character that he enters somewhat in to details: „it is indubitable that Hamlet, the enigmatic, the inscrutable, from the very outset has exerted the greatest fascination on Henrik Ibsen’s subtle mind. A reflection of his early vision of Hamlet I seem to see in the whole series of Ibsen’s most self-revealing studies of character from Skule and Julian the Apostate to Sol-ness, Borkmann and Rubeck. Shakespeare’s Hamlet, viewed in a somewhat incomplete light, seems to have helped Ibsen to read the riddle of his own soul“. On the influence of Hamlet on Ibsen via Goethe’s Faust, see a note in Chr. Collin’s Bjørn-stjerne Bjørnson II, 91. Henning Kehler (Edda, 1916, p. 290) finds influence of Gengangere, Fruen fra Havet, Rosmersholm etc. and sees in this trick a “kontrastvirkning” which Ibsen makes use of “instead of real action which the dramas of fate are so deficient in and by which he replaces the psychic action” (sjælelig handling).
See the notes to 1.1. 584 (Solveig and Margaret); 994 (riding on a hog and Baubo); 1967 (the tone of a joke, cf. also n. to 1. 1807 and that to 1. 4526) 2995 (the big birds and the klassische Walpurgisnacht); 3328 (a skit on the delight in what is „selvgjort“) 3499 (the Strange Passenger and Mephisto); 3995 (the Furumo-scene); 4037 (the Susning i Lüften and the Irrlichter); 4139 (the Button-moulder and Mephisto); 4429, 4572 (the Lean one and Mephisto) and lastly 1. 4684 (the salvation by Solveig and that by Margaret: gerichtet!).
See Karl Larsen, Episke Brand, 1. 672 and p.p. 228, 233; Fr. Ording, Henrik Ibsens Kærlighedens Kom., J. W. Cappelens Forlag, Kristiania, (1914), p. 61; J. Collin, 1.1. p. 150; Eft. Skr. I. p.p. LXXVII; III, p.300; H. Kehler, Edda, 1915, IV, p. 211.
Jørgen Tesman’s silly: Tænk det, mentioned there as one of the cases is not quite in point, as the words are mentioned if not quite so often in the first draft too; cf. Eft. Skr. III, 233, which Henning Kehler, Edda 1916, p. 89 has also overlooked.
„Ibsen gik med en sjælelig blufærdighed…. afveien for alle seksuelle emner. Det erotiske element, der spiller en saa liden rolle i hans digtning traadte heller ikke frem i hans tale “ John Paulsen, Mine Erindringer, p. 19 and see a couple of remarks in Henning Kehler’s study, Edda, 1916, p. 43. See the n. to 1. 4504.
Det problem som denne mærkelige oldtidslevning stiller er altsaa alt andet end betydningsfuldt; det er futilt og latterligt som saa mange af de spørgsmaal der optog oldtidsforskernes opmerksomhed…. Spørgsmaalet er som sagt futilt og ikke vserd en tanke. Det er altsaa bare vaas naar der tilføies; Du maa dø eller raade. Sangens gaade! Det gjælder livet at faa dette ligegyldige spørgsmaal løst — det er en lebensfrage, som Begriffenfeldt vilde have udtrykt sig. Mere var der altsaa ikke i skrinet med det rare i ! Indfaldet er yderst originalt — om ikke netop blændende…. Gaaden er hverken dyb eller god — men god nok til at opfylde sin hensigt: at mystificere os og harcellere pedanteriet og løsningen er altsaa den, at — gaaden ingen sindrighed gjemmer” ….
In U Ibsen had first written fang de Fugle; prøv at rade (sic) Sangens Gaade, but changed it there already into the present reading. Compare Ballonbrev, F, IV, 389: „Sfinxen på sin visdoms (Eft. Skr. I, 497: Stumheds) vagt, dødes af sin egen gade.“
That Collin’s interpretation clearly stands under the influence of the politics of the day need not necessarily speak against the correctness of his views but should here be recorded.
It should be recorded as the acme of the translator’s art that Mr. Brons coolly renders mine Fugle by mijn vule: dirty, lazy, here:’ schlau, gerieben’ as he adds in a note!
Such as when Petersen speaks of Ibsen’s ‚overgreb’: „Derimod gjør han et Overgreb og flytter paa flere Punkter fra det symbolske ud i det blot eventyrlige naar han lader Dovregubbens datter føde Peer Gynt et Barn og siden gifter hende med Thrond i Valfjeldet“ and then follows the passage quoted.
Compare his translation, p. 166. In his monograph (p. 44) he tells us that if Ibsen had written his Peer Gynt in our days, he might have been supposed to have a bout in Begriffenfeldt with his own commentators, — of which I suppose Prozor is one!
Weininger thinks that Begriffenfeldt „übrigens mehr ist als eine blosse Karikatur. Denn er erkennt sehr wohl die ganze Hohlheit des Gyntschen selbst und weiss wo Peer’s Kaisertum einzig Geltung hat.… im Irrenhause“. Did Dr. Weininger really not see that Begriffenfeldt is himself as mad as a march-hare, seeing that he takes him so seriously ?
jeg vil, men pa anti-preussisk made; ej i kraft af ret for nåde; tyske floskel-helte, Wacht am Rhein som kaldes Sang, denne klamme grav; en skok olden — eller militære rovdyr, and see ib. his contempt for dagens mænd, disse Fritzer, Blumen-thaler, etc. His antipathy to the Germans was one of the tributary streams to his attitude in the question of Norwegian versus Danish (n. to l. 3179) Danish was too full of German; cf. Edda, I, 153: Du danske mand.… du kvad om dine sønners død, men tysk var kvadets gang, og tysk var dine døttres graad som dine skaldes sang…. “
Although at present under literary influence, Danish or possibly even German as Prof. Storm once suggested, the name of the drama is often pronounced with a hard g.
There is a something in this word that does not admit of translation, a “by-tone” that it is even difficult to render by anything short of an elaborate paraphrase. It should not be forgotten that the name maalstrævere was originally given them by their opponents, even now they would rather call themselves: maalmænd or maal-venlige. And like the German Streber, the second composing element of the word hints very clearly if distantly at the (non-justified) accusation of being pushing busybodies that try to get at their aim at whatever cost (to their opponents!), by fair means or, if necessary, foul.
An attempt to characterise this movement in anything like detail would swell this note to inadmissible dimensions. A full account of its history and a review of its modern features by the present writer may be found in the Dutch periodical Groot-Nederland (1908) and the Norwegian Samtiden (1909).
Endog når han angreb Vinje og Målstræverne i Hu-hus skikkelse, havde han egne anfægtelser at gore bod for; „Fjeldfuglen“ viser at også han fra sit romantiske Standpunkt havde været inde på malstræverske veje“.
Yet, if we may trust one of Ibsen’s younger contemporaries who has had special occasion to hear it from Ibsen’s own mouth (although it is not certain that this is here the case!), Ibsen owed a great deal to Vinje from the point of view of language: „Ibsens sprog som det særlig træder frem i „Peer Gynt“, denne lyk-kelige blanding af folkeord, af daglig tale, af maalstræv, maa for en stor del tilskrives Vinjes inflydelse“. J. Paulsen, Mine Erindringer, 1900 p. 21.
For the poet’s second attack on Blom, see „Et utrykt Polemisk digt av Henrik Ibsen, meddelt av Halvdan Koht, Samtiden, 1911 p. 361.
There is a curious hit at a „society for the restitution of the Old Norse tongue“ and its originator Julian Paulsen in Sanct Hans Natten (1852, cf. Eft, Skr. I p.p. 380 seqq. which to some might seem to be written ‘at’ Vinje. Prof. D. A. Seip (Edda, I, 145 n. 2) tells of a Sprogforening and K. Knudsen and thinks that this is what Ibsen may have thought of, „although there are no further points of resemblance between Knudsen and Julian Paulsen“. Anders Krogvig (in a private letter) thinks there is no allusion to any special person, but that Julian Paulsen is a hit at “datidens gjennemsnitstype paa en norsk kritiker.“
The views here condensed are those of Chr. Collin in the two papers mentioned, Morgenbladet and Samtiden, 1913 (now two chapters in „Det geniale Menneske“). The tone of the attack is that characterised by Gran (1.1. p. 182) as „Hollandsk“ which is of course to be taken „in a Pickwickian sense“, a rough way peculiar to the circle of Botten Hansen and others, cf. the n. to 1. 4415, to which Ibsen belonged in his early days. Gran (No. Aandsliv p. 172) thus characterises these „Dutchmen“ that they “saa intet andet (i bøndernes selvbevissthet) end ildelugtende plebeiervæsen, i sprogbevægelsen og det nationale opkomme intet andet end sjølvgod seminarisme.“
Which does not mean that Ibsen may not have thought here of all maalrefor-mers in general or other individuals in particular. In a paper (Edda I, p. 156, n) by Seip I find that Kristofer Janson e. g. vindicates the “honour” of standing for Huhu.
As a proverb in Aasen: Vaar Herre er Lagverja fyre Daararne, efter Wilse; in Mau (I, 211, II, 428)I find the following variants: Gud, (and even) Lykken er alle Daarers Formynder, Vorherre er Fattigfolks Formynder; Tilfældet er alle Daarers Formynder.
It can do no harm, however, to note for later investigators that Ibsen had read Kierkegaard’s Enten-Eller already in his Grimstad days (cf. n. to 1. 2461) together with his friend Due; cf. the latter’s Erindringer, p. 38. Cf. the next note. See on Ibsen at Grimstad some valuable remarks in Bergwitz’s book on this’ smaaby’.
The image in itself is of course common enough: at gaa paa Kothurner = at sætte noget paa Skruer (Mau, II, 290), — in Adam Homo the man that at the masked ball comes forth „with his mask in his hand“ tells us too that art does reside in cothurns as little as in masks: Om Sokken og Cothurnen vel man vrövler Ret som om Konsten deri skulde boe; Men min Cothurne som du seer, er Stövler, Og jeg for Sokker foretraskker Skoe. Bort med Cothurne! Bort med Maske, Sokke! I vor Tid er Personen Eet og Alt; I denne Tro, mit Folk, lad ei dig rokke, Og Konsten elsk i Konstnerens Gestalt! (9e Sang, II, 166) And Mephistopheles (Studirzimmer, Faust I) had said practically the same thing: Setz deinen Fuss auf ellenhohe Socken, Du bleibst doch immer, was du bist. The Strange Passenger narrows it down to every-day circumstances.-
And passim in Holberg, e. g. the relation of father-in-law to son-in-law (Gert Westphaler), Polit. Kandestøber, etc. In the Ellevte Junii simply = related (however distantly) etc. —
Wörner remarks (I1 p. 253, 2260)quite rightly that the story was meant for the public before the stage rather than on it. —
Others who have observed the resemblance of Peer Gynt and Faust are Schir-mer (Syn og Segn, 1915, p. 97 seqq.) and quite lately Henning Kehler, Edda, 1916, who remarks: P. G. slutter sig i Formen til Værker som „Faust“, Kaiser Octavianus (Tieck), Aladdin, En Sjæl efter Døden, Ahasverus og Fibiger’s Johannes den D0ber”, — all on account of their form, i. e. rather formlessness. He also observes that the division into scenes which is here wanting, “kan bruges til at markere en Handling som bevæger sig frem i sæt, men ikke en fremadskridende „insinuant“ eksposition.” — (p. p. 269, 281). —
Thread-balls as the incorporations of trolls are legion in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish folklore, as they are found in German too. The Archers have quoted (p. VI) a passage from Bertha Tuppenhaugs Fortællinger which Ibsen is sure to have read (ed. 1912. p 25; compare ib. p. 296). Further: Asbjørnsen, Udv. Folkeev. 1907, I, 59 (Guldslottet som hang i Lüften); Lappiske Eventyr ed. Qvigstad og Sandberg, p. 102, 3; Kleiven, I garnie daagaa, p. 34; Olsen, No. Folkeev. og Sagn 1912, p. p. 34, 198, 235 (Kjerle = nøste?), 236. — See Feilberg in v. ild (II, 10, a), ib. III, 520, b, Spøgelse som garnnøgle eller hestepære; and ib. III, 959 in v. udøbt: udebt myrdet barn ses som trillende garnnøgler. See also Feilberg, Bjærgtagen, p. p. 33, 48 (cf. Mau, II, 94: Der er et Nøgle under ham = han kan ikke sidde stille. For Swedish Folklore, see Wigström, Folktro, p. p. 85, 175 (trollan förskara sig till svarta Kattor eller till store nystan, etc.); H. and E. Folkminnen, 1907 p. 374; Hermelin, Sägner ock Folktro, p. p. 48, 60; Weis, Sägner pa Aspelandsmal, p. 116.—See R. Köhler, Kl. Schriften, I, 407. — The central idea underlying all this is of course the theory that not only animals but pace the word, all inaminate objects have souls too; for which belief I refer but to a couple of works: Meyer’s chapter on the Seelenglauben p. p. 90 seqq. of his Myth, der Germanen; Feilberg’s book on Sjæletro, 1914 and of course the chapters on Animism in Tylor’s Primitive Culture.
As here the dew-drops, so elsewhere we have blood-drops which are introduced speaking; Asbjørnsen quoted by Feilberg, Tillæg p. 47. b.
When in the Merchant of Venice, Bassanio is commenting on the caskets to himself, a song is heard which undoubtedly directs the suitor’s choice, — „S o may the outward shows be least themselves“, he exclaims, clearly showing that the teaching of the poem: fancy is but engendered in the eyes has not been vouchsafed in vain. There is nothing whatever in the scene to indicate that the song was sung at the order or the instigation of Portia of which the sly little wench was otherwise quite capable. So the possibility remains that it was meant by the poet as an interpretation of this motif of the supernatural voices in the air that the remarks above give some illustration of. As to the voices of trolls which are heard passim in the folk-tales, (cf. to quote one more instance: sei henni Deld at Dild dat i eld = motiv: den store Pan er død; Moltke Moe, Episke Grundlove, Edda ′15, 3, p.p. 90, 91) I should like to remind the student of two interpretations of it in later literature, one already century-old: cf. Washington Irving’s Rip van Winkle and one on the contrary quite recent: Selma Lager1öf who makes such a splendid use of it in one of the most wonderful products of her pen: Gammal Fäbodsägn (Troll ock Människor, 1915, p. 72). —
Compare Wörner, I1 p. 261, who explains Peer’s „sins of omission“ in the same way, and by a reference to Paui Heyse’s Märtyrer der Phantasie, not as a possible source of course (its date is 1874) but as a parallel. —
Johs. Brøndum-Nielsen (Politiken) thinks the extension is quite normal.
Compare Henning Kehler, Edda 1915, p. 214 who quotes these very words (by Hetman-Brendel of course !): Utryg Samvittighed. Den er det som vi har faaet i Arv allesammen. Derfor er Menneskeheden ulsegelig, uhjaslpelig.” under „Synd, Skyld, Samvittighed“.
Bjørn; but an old norse form corresponding to Dutch and German beer, bär was bær —, now only found, besides in berserker, in a latinised form Bero (Saxo, cf. ed Jantzen, p. p. 184, 462; fern, bera, hunbjørn), — cf. n. to 1. 724.
Other names for such places are: Blaakulla in Sweden (cf. Steffen in the Feil-berg-Festskrift, p. 536: derived from kulla = woman; cf. already Troel s Lund, Dagligt Liv i Norden, VII, 231 seq: = Blaakol in Norway, Huldreev. ′12 p. 94: No. Sagn2, p. 11; Kleiven, Segner fraa Vaagaa, p. 45 and Publ. Soc. Advancement Sc. Study 1916 p. 233) and Bovbjærg, Bredsten, Dovrefjeld, Lyderhorn, Nasafjäll, Pommern (on account of alliteration with Pokker [i Vold]? Feilberg II, 860 in v.), Troms Kirke, etc. etc. See Feilberg in v. Bloksbjærg, nordost, Hekkenfelt, helvede, Troms Kirke; Tillæg p. p. 49, 61; Jul, II, 55, Troels Lund, 1.1.
I suppose his reference is to S. Matthew, 16, 25,26 which he seems to have quoted by heart — Mr. Ellis Roberts “is not altogether free from Peer’s own fault quoting old saws without due thought” —; at least the divergencies from the A. V. (added in brackets) are important.
Ibsen had also read about Justedal in Faye’s Norske Sagn, whence he drew the matter for his Rypen i Justedal, Eft. Skr. I, 344 but that is all about the Black Death, so quite the opposite of the long life referred to here.
Askeladd is of course = Ashiepattle; see the n. to 1. 255. By the side of Esben (= Asbjørn!) we find Espen; cf. Asbjørnsen’s No. Folkeev. 1914, passim, Moesbreve, p. 210, etc. —
Compare the description of a ridiculous person whom Ibsen met in the streets of Kristiania, in Paulsen’s Samliv med Ibsen, I, p. 10: han sa ud som en bedemand (undertaker) iført en hvid halsdug og nogle garnie sorte skindhandsker”.
When the proper name Peder is now used (as in Vrøvle-Peder) to designate something stupid and tedious, Prof. Vilhelm Andersen, in his remarkable paper in the Thomsen-Festskrift (1894) ascribes this to the ‘bi-tone’ in that word of bede, bedemand. Of course this may or may nòt be so, — the fact that equivalents in other languages (cf. Dutch zeur-piet) miss that bytone certainly makes us pause! But to us it is interesting to hear what bytone the professor feels in Bedemand. —
There is some „smack“ (bi-tone) of the (sentimentally-)pious in Jörgen Moe’s: „Der er (Hör nu ! atter Bedemandsstiil !) der er besternt en Rand inderst i Sjelen, der fortoner sig, etc. When Ibsen in 1889 wrote to Halvorsen that he sees no objection to the printing of his letter to King Charles (cf. Breve, II, 83) „skjønt jeg nu synes at det er holdt så temmelig i bedemandsstil“, — we shall find, on looking it up (Breve, I, 113) that the word here may mean either, the tone is no doubt somewhat screwed-up, but the sentimentality is not wanting either. —
cf. No. Sagn2 1902, p. 99: „Hin Karen…. havde betinget at (baaden) ikke maatte merkes. Paa den vis kunde den nemlig heller ikke tjærekorses i for-og agterstavnen.“
Feilberg in v. Dennemand, which one might be tempted to look upon in the same light, is supposed to be (by Feilberg in v.) a substitution for djævlen ta’ mig. ‘Den og den’ may therefore perhaps be looked upon as a standing expression for the devil (although its more usual sense is of course: so and so; cf. Du er saamen ligesaa god Fraken du, som baade Den og Den hele gaden bortigjennem, Wergeland, VI, p. 459) and in that case not, as the Archers’ translation (and Ellis Roberts’: Thank you know who) suggests, made up by the Lean One as though he did not dare to, or wish to utter the name, although it may of course be the Lean One’s substitution for: Gudskelov. The good joke to put this expression in the mouth of this gentleman himself, does not seem less witty in consequence. —
And Bergsgaard explains this in a remarkably ingenious way by turning Chr. Collin’s hypothesis (supra n. to 1. 4608,9 and lower down) inside out: Peer is not saved as Collin thinks because from the type he was (of the Norwegian people) Ibsen has made him into an individual whom he, Ibsen to some extent identifies himself with; on the contrary, Peer is saved because he is not only an individual but also a representative of the Norwegian people and because it is Solveig, the type of, or rather the incarnation of the Dagny-side of the Norwegian woman that waits for him and gives him i. e. that gives it (viz. the Norwegian people) the new „termin“ (letter of 4, 3, ′66 to Bjørnson) it wants so badly in order to be saved. And it is woman, the Norwegian woman who is to save Norway, teste one of Ibsen’s later plays where woman is shown to be the true „pillar of society“. Apropos of the “Dagny-type” that Bergsgaard mentions, cf. Henning Kehler (Who distinguishes between Ibsen’s fair and dark women; the former as a rule the good ones, the latter of an evil disposition; Edda, ′16 p. 54): Det er et af Ibsens allermest anvendte Motiver at stille en Mand mellem to Kvinder der i de historiske Dramaer staar overfor hinan den somdet gode mod det onde: Aurelia-Furia, Signe-Margit, Helena-Makrina. Hertil slutter sig Solveig-Hægstadjenten der er suppleret med Dovrekongens datter og Agnes-Gerd”. —
I noted one or two exceptions: Mr. A. Leroy Andrews, Journal of English and Germanic Phil., XIII, 240: As Margaret’s spirit leads at the end Faust’s soul to higher spheres, so Peer Gynt’s soul „seems similarly to be saved through Solvejg’s love; at least she herself is confident that such is the case, a confidence not necessarily shared by the reader nor actually confirmed by the author“. And Arne Bergsgaard too in the paper mentioned lays stress on the fact that it is but hope of salvation (bergingsvon) that is held out to Peer.
As remarked by Prof. Julius Olsen in his useful annotated edition of Brand, p. 339, the English: faith hope and charity do not fully correspond to our term. Hence, the Archers, noting (p. 278) that Kjærlighed also means „charity in the bible sense“, for once sacrifice the metre of the line by rendering the word as love. —
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1917 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Logeman, H. (1917). Første Handling. Act First.. In: A Commentary, critical and explanatory on the Norwegian text of Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt its language, literary associations and folklore. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8784-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8784-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8155-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8784-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive