gradual manner connected him to the ideas of Knudsen but also gave him an addition avenue of expression of authorship. Norwegians could choose to write like Knudsen or like Aasen, and by these choices express political sentiments of either pan-Scandinavianism or of an anti-Danish nationalism.
despite his harsh critique. The satire, the condemnation of all political factions, the indefatigable and righteous persona of Dr. Stockmann, and the truth of his cause made the play accessible in ways completely contrary to the shocking Gengangere in which virtually every social taboo was broken. The lightness of the content perhaps was intended to increase sales of the book. Hegel had published 10,000 copies of Gengangere but they could not be sold; the play could not be performed and had its world premiere staging in Chicago in 1882.39 With En Folkefiende, Hegel published 10,000 copies but they would not sell, and 15 years would elapse before a second printing was needed.40
The style and content of En Folkefiende also contributed to the work’s cultivation of Ibsen’s persona as author. In style, the play took up the call of the critic Georg Brandes to create works of literature that “put problems under debate”; Brandes met Ibsen in Dresden in 1871, a year before the lectures in Copenhagen that announced the beginning of realism and the social problem play.36 Ibsen adopted realism with his play Samfundets Støtter [Pillars of Society, 1877] and continued with the style through a cycle of plays that culminated in En Folkefiende. The realist style had gained popularity through Europe and was exemplified in the novel by Emile Zola. Ibsen differed from Zola because, as he put it: “Zola goes down into the sewer to bathe, I to clean it out.” The imagery of the sewer, of corruption, was taken into the heart of En Folkefiende, for it matched with the mood of realism, the purpose of realism, and the content of the play - Ibsen announced that it was Norway that was morally corrupted and needed to reform. Toril Moi explained this as a consequence of National Authorship: the Norwegians “interpret[ed] his plays as comments on local circumstances.”37 Partially this was because at least a portion of the play derived from events that happened in Norway. The Christiania Dampkjøkken [Steam Kitchen] remained in the minds of many due to the events in October 1874 when Harald Thaulow exposed the unsanitary conditions of the kitchen; his attempt to speak at the Kitchen’s directors’ meeting contributed to the style of the play, the use of a public meeting and nefarious parliamentary procedures in Act IV.38
The main point of En Folkefiende again related to Ibsen’s conception of authorship. Taking Kierkegaard’s idea that “the multitude is falsehood,”41 Ibsen put “The majority has might… but it hasn’t right… The minority is always right… I’m plotting revolution against this lie that the majority has a monopoly of the truth.”42 Stockmann echoed Ibsen’s own words in his letters: “I want to stand as an isolated sniper on the outpost working on my own.”43 Here, the concept of the National Author became clearer to Ibsen in that both exile from the nation and exile from society defined the proper position of an author wanting to hold a mirror up to his own people - in order to hold the mirror, one must be behind it, and separate from the crowd.
“... in order to hold the mirror, one must be behind it, and separate from the crowd.”
It might be argued that there is no good reason to consider Stockmann as an avatar of Ibsen’s ideal author but there is convincing evidence based upon the characters Ibsen combined to form Stockmann and the context of his own career at that point. First, Stockmann was a combination of Ibsen, the Norwegian novelist Jonas Lie, and Ibsen’s rival (frenemy) Bjørnson - Lie contributed the brilliance, the abrupt changes of topic in conversation, the kindness of Stockmann amongst his friends before they abandoned him; Bjørnson contributed the boldness, bravery, and recklessness of Stockmann; Ibsen, his
The content of the play - highly political - was calculated by Ibsen to be palatable to audiences
Ibid, 109. Downs, 38. 31 Martin B. Ruud, “The Story of the Publication of Ibsen’s “Brand”.” 1918. Scandinavian Studies and Notes 5 (2):91-95. 32 Naess, 115. 33 Ibid., 99-102. 34 Henrik Ibsens Skrifter Innledninger og kommentarer, 611. 35 Ibid., 642. 29
30
57