Abstract
This critical study of the existing Peer Gynt texts, with the exception of §§ 140, 141 and a few notes added here and there in the text, was written in the spring of 1914 and even composed down to § 104. It was to have been published in the Recueil de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Gand in the September of that year, contemporaneously with a short extract of this study in Prof. Gran’s then new venture, the „Edda“. The war broke out and only the latter paper, „Tilbake til Ibsen“, did actually see the light (1914, no. 3), for every communication between author and printers of the longer study (at Bruges) ceased very soon after the catastrophe began and it was not until the spring of 1916, after many and various difficulties, that the manuscript and the sheets printed off could be got at and, as the continuation of the „Recueil“ for the first was open to much doubt, that arrangements were made to transfer this study to Martinus Nijhoff of the Hague, who had kindly undertaken to publish it together with the preceding larger commentary on Ibsen’s masterpiece.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The Mindeudgave will henceforth be found referred to as M.; Prof. Storm’s appendix as S. M. See for further abbreviations, infra § 7; a full list will be given at the end of the present work.
“Jeg har kun rettet hvad jeg tror forf. selv efter nærmere undersøgelse vilde have rettet,” S.M., p. 3.
A proof that my list is not exhaustive will be found infra in §11 as well as in the notes to 1.1. 614, 728, 799, 963, 1493, 1498, 1730, 2877 (Add.), etc. They were not added to my list in § 10 as the instances in question were discovered when the greater part of my collated texts had already been sent back to Kristiania or lKøben-havn so that the collation could not be given completely.
The publishers are in each and all cases Messrs. Gyldendal, of Copenhagen; the style of their publishing house is not always the same in the different editions; the name of the printers added as a rule on the title page also changes.
This will be found borne out by subsequent investigations on Ibsen’s „Caprices“ in the drama: see the notes to the Strange Passenger, the Lean One, the Button-moulder and even the Boyg.
The importance that Ibsen attached to punctuation, and its soul, if I may say so: the different pauses to be made in’ saying ‘the printed text, appears very clearly, and most interestingly, from one of his earlier criticisms: “Lord William Russell og dets udforelse på Christiania teater, 1857, to be found in the Samlede Værker, vol. X, p. 393, where, commenting upon the acting of a young actress, Miss Svendsen, he says: hun synes at have ladet det bero med den første og tarveligste regel, at man bor standse noget ved komma og lidt mere ved punktum; men dette “lidt mere” kan varieres i det uendelige. Har hun midt i sin replik et tankespring at gore, en overgang fra en forestilling til en anden, så må man dog af pausens ejen-dommelighed, af ansigtets udtryk og den forandrede tone se, at denne nye tanke op-stiger,” etc. It is of course allowable to interpret this as if Ibsen intended to indicate these ‘tankespring’, these abrupt transitions in thought, by his punctuation, his dashes more especially. — In the preface to Catilina, we find an amusing passage about the use he sometimes put these dashes — tankestregene — to: they were often used where the correct expression did not at the moment of writing suggest itself. (Saml. V. F., 1, p. 8). The number of them was greatly increased in the printed ed., cf. Eft. Skr. III, 376. In a paper by Ibsen dated 11/9/1862 which Eitrem has recently unearthed from the “Morgenbladet” of that year, I find a similar passage which it may be interesting to reproduce. Speaking of the “gifted artist” he says that she “does not seem to have a good ear for the true value und meaning of punctuation; the commas which should be the “fence-sticks of diction” — Dictionens Gjærdestave — esh jumps over with a remarkable nimbleness!” (Morgenbladet, August, 1916).
I think I ought to add that mere misprints are mentioned only, quite exceptionally, when some peculiarity attaches to them or when they are repeated in subsequent editions. When (as in 3, p. 70) storfolk is printed storfok, corrected at once into storfolk in 4, such a mistake will not be taken cognizance of here, even when indicated in my m.s. notes.
Other cases of bær, bær’ and bærer used promiscuously by Ibsen (at least if the reprint may be trusted in this respect!) I note from the Folkeudg., S. V., vol. X, pp. 80 and 554: bærer; ib., pp. 116, 117, 158: bser’, and ib., pp. 484, 561 and 563: bær. — And cf. De selv bær’ Dem ad. (F, IX, 116).
The word-form Scandinavism will, I hope, be pardoned me even though not found in the N. E. D., because it seems necessary to express like its Scandinavian counterpart Skandinavisme: a desire for Scandinavian Unity, political or otherwise, a sort of Pan-Scandinavism in fact. If Scandinavism is really un-English (although Brynildsen in his Norsk-Engelsk Ordbog uses it) the definition given above should at least have been added to that of “the characteristic ideas of the Scandinavian people” given under Scandinavianism in the N. E. D.
Compare Jakob Løkke, Beretning om det Nordiske Retskrivingsmøde i Stockholm, Kristiania, 1870, from which I take the following details. I have not seen the similar accounts drawn up by the Dane Lyngby and the Swede Hazelius. On Ibsen’s orthography just before that meeting, cf. a short note Eft. Skr. III, 359. He used until then Capital letters in the substantives.
In Sanct Hansnatten, “substantiver med smaat” are made fun of as being characteristic of „en Folkets Mand der gaar med Tollekniven“; cf. Eft. Skr. I, 405 (n. to 1. 1053).
Til S. rejste Ibsen med offentligt Stipendium af den norske stat den 21de Juli 1869, deltog der i det nordiske retskrivningsmøde…. og studered svensk kunst og undervisningsvæsen. (Breve I, p. 321; notes).
It is necessary to remind my readers that the purpose of the present study is one of the texts of Peer Gynt exclusively, so that I do not here take into account any earlier proof of this that may exist in connection with other plays; this side of the question I have not yet been able to investigate.
Compare nos 43 and 257: Sex first changed into seks and then restored, and flux changed into fluks. M changes the former all the same into seks and the latter into flugs. Flugs Ibsen also uses in Gildet paa Solhoug, — at least it is so found in F (II, p. 155). Particular attention is directed to a letter by Ibsen to his Danish publisher, Mr. Hegel, of Nov. 25, 1865, where we find the reason indicated why he wanted these double consonants to stand: so as to distinguish egg (edge) from eg (the oak), dugg (dew) from dug (tablecloth), viss (a certain) from vis (wise), etc. See infra, § 115.
This peculiarity — it can be nothing but a mere blunder (but a pretty common one as Dr. Chr. Lange tells me) — is too much even for the editors of the Efterladte Skrifter. They reprint all the texts very faithfully after the manuscript (vol. I, p. VIII), but they write: “Og en enkelt stående egenhed i Ibsens stavemade, nemlig at han fra 1850 helt frem til 1870 ofte skriver “skjelden”, istedenfor “sjelden”, har vi ikke ment at burde udstille.”
The reading of the first and second editions, see infra.
In Kongsemnerne we find (F, II, p. 378): til stjernehvælven blå. Brynildsen in his first edition quoting this very passage, gives hvælv as neuter and common gender; in the second edition the neuter gender only is recognised. In Danish too it is neuter only. The min may be nothing but an “attraction” (unconsciously of course) to pande.
The form ryddig is found in Ibsens Kæmpehöjen (F, X, II); Fru Inger (F, I. 236), Gengangere, (F, VI, 365).
Cf. Kæltringstreger (F, IV, 9)
When Madame Rundholmen says (F, IV, 25) about Steensgaard: Kunde en ikke gerne kysse ham, she is also more impersonal, Daniel Hejre makes this quite clear in his remark: would you like to kiss him? Her “innate modesty” would not have allowed her to speak in the first person! But see Comm. n. to 1. 3390.
And the wrong reading will be found echoed in several translations; that by Morgenstern (Passarge has properly gefeit = virtute magica imbutus), Brons and Count Prozor’s le courbe frappé probably reflect død rather than saarløs. Archer’s unwounded and Ellis Robert’s untired are not very satisfactory in any case.
The reading uskadt is tolerably certain, but not quite clear enough to speak with absolute certainty.
Much better is, as we shall presently find, Wörner’s translation, given as in passing (I1, 224): Ein glühender Ring presst ihn um die Schläfe. —
Skrued did not seem absolutely above suspicion in U, but as I afterwards found, Prof. Koht gives the same reading without any hesitation in the Efterladte Skrifter (II, 93), so there can be no doubt about it. Prof. Koht does not mention that the whole of this passage, as so many in U, is crossed over and scarcely legible without a great effort for the eye.
I append in a note some suggestions from various correspondents that are sure to interest my readers. Stavnem, on looking through this passage, gave it as his opinion that bendes might here be explained as klemmes, presses, trykkes, compares: lægge en i bakken = kaste en til jorden. If this is correct — and I would leave it to others to judge — bænde i bakken would contain the same verb as that in beendende glohed, but would not be = eng. to bend. He quotes “om kraftanstrengelser av forskjellig art”, such expressions as: Spyt i Næven, hug Kløerne i, bænd og bryd, og lad mig se, hvad du duer til” and “Mumle bændte og brød med Øxen” (both from Asbjørnsen’s Mumle Gaaseæg.). Prof. W. B. Kristensen writes to say that he knows beende = snore fast sammen” also from the Mandal-district. But the most interesting suggestion regarding our passage and very characteristic for the mind of its author and his methods of interpretation, is that with which Prof. Chr. Collin (of Kristiania) favoured me and which I think it worth writing out in its entirety: “Naar Ibsen skrev et for almindelige byfolk saa besynderlig ord som “bende” to gange i to linjer, maa det være fordi han fandt ordet særlig malende”.… “ Jeg har vanskelig ved at forklare mig Ibsens glæde ved dette ords uttryksfuldhet uten ved at anta, at han i sin bamdom eller ungdom har hørt ordet brukt om at sætte baand paa (en tonde eller et kar), altsaa: baandsætte. Digteren maa, tror jeg, ha set for sig et anskuelig billede, av ringen (heist en jernring om et kar eller en fustage) som klemmer eller strammer om panden” after having been “av bedtker ophetet sä den blir glohet.” If we can imagine that he has seen this with his own eyes at Skien (I Skien var jo sagbruk) the expression would be “allerbedst fra kunstnerisk Standpunkt.”
Ibsen uses klemme in other places; cf. e.g. in Hærmændene paa Helgeland: der er noget som klemmer mig for bringen (F., II, 98) and: Ulivs-sår…. har min garnie bringe klemt (ib. II, 101).
Compare what Oswald says in Gengangere (F., VI, 431): Det var som om en trang jernring blev skruet om nakken og opover.
Cf. henkastende, used in Bygmester Solness (F, IX, 39); in J. G. Borkman (F, IX, 336);in Dukkehjem(F, VI, 201) and in Nar vi döde vagner (F, vol. X, p. 201).
Cf. de stimler sammen i store flokke (Kongsemnerne, F, II, 444). In itself, the expression Folk stimler is of course right enough, cf: Kan De se hvor folk stimler did, Sigurd Ibsen, Robert Frank, p. 79.
Of course here, as often in this investigation, mistake is used from the standpoint taken up of the desirability of faithful adherence to Ibsen’s text. But they are not all to be placed on the same footing: with Ibsen’s Beduiner by the side of Beduin which is the more common form we may perhaps compare his kulier by the side of the only usual kuli, cf. § 108, and the well known Rabbiner by the side of Rabbi?; cf. Comm. n. to 1. 1970. The change ynglen is entirely uncalled for since even now yngelen is used. (Morgenbladet, 14 april 1914: Hvad torskeyngelen lever av.) Videre is now of course more common than vidre (cf. endvidre, n° 261, § 99). But the three others are downright mistakes from any point of view.
Compare, de handlende personer, F, vol. X, p. 382, and: de optrædende personer, ib. p. 195 (Når vi døde vågner.)
In a letter of March 8, 1867, Ibsen speaks of Handling (Breve, I, 149). In his earlier plays, Catilina, Rypen i Justedal, Sanct Hansnatten (E.S. I, 333, 339, 371) etc., Ibsen had himself used the word akt (spelled act in the cases quoted) but cf. Personer-ne, E.S. I, 340, 372.
A galehuslem Peer Gynt calls den Fremmede (5th Act) and cf. familjelemmer (F, II, 252, Kjærlighedens Kom.); hospitalslem (F, VI, 218, Dukkehjem). If Welhaven had given Wergeland “rang blandt Parnassets daarekistemedlemmer” instead of daarekistelemmer (Nordahl Rolfsen, No. digtere, p. 226), he would no doubt have turned the tables unconsciously upon himself, causing his readers to ask if he were not ripe for the place too.
“ Kongestormeren Nansen”, Morgenbladet, 20 mai, 1914, is the latest addition I know of to those in the dictionaries.
It will be noticed that the author had first written (in U): begynder i forrige og slutter i dette Aarh. which he there changes into: begynder i Förstningen af dette Aarhundrede og slutter henimod vore Dage, which he repeated in R. Ibsen seems to have thought that Peer Gynt actually lived at the end of the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th century; see his letter to Mr. Hegel of 8/8, 67 (Breve I, 151 “Hvis det kan intéressera Dem at vide, så er Peer Gynt en virkelig Person, der har levet i Gudbrandsdalen, rimeligvis i Slutningen of forrige eller i Begyndelsen of dette årh.” We know better now: he must have lived in the 17th century; see the paper by Per Aasmundstad in Syn og Segn for 1903. For although Aasmundstad’s paper does not exactly make a very scholarly impression, the result would really seem to go far towards establishing his point. Peer is said to have lived at Kvam according to Asbjørnsen’s version, but he appears to have been born at Søtorp quite close by. He may have been born, but of this we are not sure, at the very farm where he seems to have lived all his life: Nordre Haagaa as the dialect form runs, i. e. the riksmaal Hagen, the Garden. But there is reason to believe that it was formerly called Haugen, i. e. the Hill. After his father Ole (to add some further details about the “historical” Peer Gynt) he must have been called Peer Olsen, but after the farm: Peer Hagen, and indeed a huldre is reported to have actually adressed him thus. As to the name Gynt —see the n. to 1. 3063 (Comm.). He seems to have been quite a big gun, for he possessed not only that farm at S0torp but also various stuer, one of which is reported to have been used as late as 1858; it was the identical hut near the Atta-lake where tradition makes him meet the Boyg. The farm Hagen is now still in existence at least if report speaks true and known as the Peer Gynt-stue of the Sandvigske Samlinger at Lillehammer. Sandvig thinks it was built ab. 1660. (cf Sandvig p. 53). Readers of Dutch may be referred to a paper in the Tijdspiegel, 1915: Peer Gynt voor Ibsen. Count Prozor’s opinion that Peer’s dreams about his becoming an Emperor remind one of Napoleon, should be considered in connection with these dates. (Comte M. Prozor, Le Peer Gynt d’Ibsen, Paris, Mercure de France, 1897; pp. 16 and passim); cf. Comm. n. to 1. 1981. And compare Jæger, 1892, p. 73: “Tidskolorit er Sekstiaarenes.”
Compare also en stærkbygget liden en, En Brudevielse, (F., vol. X, p. 410) and: Gallus, en smuk, stærkbygget ung mand (Kejser og Galilæer, first draft, Eft. Skr. II, 94) but in two words: stærkt bevæget samtale, (Fru Inger til Østråt F., 1, 255 and in one, ib. 254: stærktbygget mand.
We find trolden also in Olaf Liljekrans (F., vol. X p. 103); but who guarantees that it is not a misprint there too? cf. § 53.
In other plays Ibsen uses (at least the printed text, F, makes us think so!) the forms ringeagtende, ringeagtes, etc., F, VI, 145, 209, 230.
The German form geheimrath would fit so much better into the rhythm that one ventures to hope that it will prove to be in Ibsen’s M.S. Or: geheimeraad von Goethe ? !
In his first draft, Ibsen writes voghals, Eft. Skr. II, 94 (U. b. ad 9/4). But both in earlier and later works, I find (at least in the printed texts, even those before M.) the form vovsom(t), Hærmændene, F. II, 104; vovhalse, Kongsemnerne, F, II, 463 (Danish vovehals, Ordb. over gadesproget) and Dette er vovsomt, Samfundets Stötter, F. VI., 115. Landstad (Folkeviser, p. 380) has vágehals. — I find vaage sig in Riks-maalsbladet, July 4, ′14 quoted from Den 17e Mai: “fordi vi har vaaget os til at staa paa bondesiden i denne sak”. In Rypen i Justedal (Eft. Skr. I, 364) Ibsen wrote both voge and vaage (= to watch), here merely quoted to illustrate his wavering in spelling.
Even Lynner, Hærmændene paa Helgeland, p. 55 still writes: skaldekonsten
Kar without the 1 is already found in Bjerregaard; cf. Seip, Wergeland p. 25.
Juels Tonneseil spells it with an s.
Not only that Ibsen writes this word (= a cap) Luven in R., but he has actually changed what would seem to be the only “correct” spelling Luen (in U) into Luven by adding a v.
In F. X p. 13, I find hærjed twice, but the spelling may have been modernised there too.
In the Ballonbrev (F. IV, 386): i et mylr, somkaver, stunder, the rhythm precludes all change.
Veke is found in Gildet paa Solhoug (F. II, 170) and Kongsemnerne (F. II, 472).
The uvillig of U, R, and the earlier editions (1. 728; cf. ante, § 4) was changed later on (F, etc.) into uvilligt.
“Vinje gret mang ein gong nær læraren tok fram Molbechs danske Ordbok og viste paa det som der var set upp till mynster.” Koht, Gran’s Nordmand, III, p. 6.a
cf. Eft. Skr. I, 225, 228, where we find both isaahenseende and i saa Henseende.
cf. in J. G. Borkman: han blev sine venner en dyr ven, — han, John Gabriel (F. IX, 334); cf. Comm. n. to 1. 1382.
cf. Edda I, part 3, “Tilbake til Ibsen”.
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). Textual Criticism of Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. 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_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8784-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8155-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8784-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive