Pub Date : 2015-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1087716
Thor Holt
In 1862, Henrik Ibsen travelled to Hellesylt in Sunnmore, an area known for its harsh climate and exposure to rockslides and avalanches. Several scholars have recognized this place as a source of i...
{"title":"Ibsen’s Firebrand: The Dead Child and Theodicy in Brand","authors":"Thor Holt","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1087716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087716","url":null,"abstract":"In 1862, Henrik Ibsen travelled to Hellesylt in Sunnmore, an area known for its harsh climate and exposure to rockslides and avalanches. Several scholars have recognized this place as a source of i...","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087716","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1099871
H. Rønning
A Critique of Jørgen Haugan’s Dommedag og djevlepakt. Henrik Ibsens forfatterskap – fullt og helt [Doomsday and Devil's Pact. Henrik Ibsen's work Fully and Wholly.] Jørgen Haugan’s magisterial and long (607 pages) new book on Ibsen (Haugan 2014) sums up his lifelong engagement with the playwright. Over the years, Haugan has written extensively on Ibsen in articles but not least in his two previous books Henrik Ibsens metode (1977) and Diktersfinxen. En studie i Ibsen og Ibsenforskningen [Doomsday and Devils Pact. Henrik Ibsen’s Work – not in Parts and Pieces] (1982). Both of these serve as a background to the present study. Haugan elaborates upon arguments first put forward in these earlier works in the new book, which he characterises as his last contribution to the field. I have always held a certain respect and fascination for Jørgen Haugan. He has been an odd man out in the Ibsen field, particularly in a Norwegian context. His close relationship to the milieu around the charismatic professor Aage Henriksen (1938–2011) at the University of Copenhagen taught him a different approach to Ibsen and also to view literature and literary scholarship from other perspectives than those that have been prominent in Norway. In addition, I have liked his often contrarian and self-assured attitude to what has been the accepted way of looking at the great works of Norwegian literature, not least demonstrated by his book on Knut Hamsun from 2004 – Solgudens fall. This being said, I was also during my reading of Dommedag og djevlepakt frequently irritated and in vehement disagreement both by his analyses and his methodological and theoretical approach, despite often finding many aspects of his concrete examinations of the dramas insightful. In the programmatic brief foreword to the book, Haugan states some principles that guides his reading. The first is that he will
Jørgen Haugan的《Dommedag og djevlepakt》批判。亨利克·易卜生:《世界末日》和《魔鬼契约》。亨里克·易卜生的作品。约翰·豪根(j . rgen Haugan)关于易卜生的长篇权威新书(607页)总结了他与剧作家易卜生的一生。多年来，豪根写了大量关于易卜生的文章，尤其是在他之前的两本书《亨利克·易卜生的方法》(1977)和《Diktersfinxen》中。我学习易卜生和易卜生的《世界末日》和《魔鬼契约》。亨里克·易卜生的作品——不是零零碎碎的)(1982)。这两者都是本研究的背景。豪根在新书中详细阐述了这些早期作品中首次提出的论点，他将其描述为他对该领域的最后贡献。我一直对约翰·豪根怀有某种敬意和迷恋。在易卜生油田，尤其是在挪威的背景下，他一直是一个怪人。他与哥本哈根大学富有魅力的教授Aage Henriksen(1938-2011)周围的环境有着密切的关系，这让他对易卜生有了不同的看法，也让他从不同的角度看待文学和文学奖学金，而不是那些在挪威很突出的观点。此外，我还喜欢他一贯的特立独行和自信的态度，这种态度已经被公认为是看待挪威文学伟大作品的方式，尤其是他2004年写的关于克努特·哈姆生的书——《索尔古登斯的坠落》。话虽如此，在阅读Dommedag djevlepakt时，我也经常被他的分析、方法论和理论方法所激怒和强烈反对，尽管他对戏剧的具体研究在许多方面都很有见地。在这本书的纲领性简短前言中，豪根陈述了一些指导他阅读的原则。首先，他会这么做
{"title":"Sublimation leads to sublime drama. Or, if you don’t have sex you may become a great writer","authors":"H. Rønning","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1099871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1099871","url":null,"abstract":"A Critique of Jørgen Haugan’s Dommedag og djevlepakt. Henrik Ibsens forfatterskap – fullt og helt [Doomsday and Devil's Pact. Henrik Ibsen's work Fully and Wholly.] Jørgen Haugan’s magisterial and long (607 pages) new book on Ibsen (Haugan 2014) sums up his lifelong engagement with the playwright. Over the years, Haugan has written extensively on Ibsen in articles but not least in his two previous books Henrik Ibsens metode (1977) and Diktersfinxen. En studie i Ibsen og Ibsenforskningen [Doomsday and Devils Pact. Henrik Ibsen’s Work – not in Parts and Pieces] (1982). Both of these serve as a background to the present study. Haugan elaborates upon arguments first put forward in these earlier works in the new book, which he characterises as his last contribution to the field. I have always held a certain respect and fascination for Jørgen Haugan. He has been an odd man out in the Ibsen field, particularly in a Norwegian context. His close relationship to the milieu around the charismatic professor Aage Henriksen (1938–2011) at the University of Copenhagen taught him a different approach to Ibsen and also to view literature and literary scholarship from other perspectives than those that have been prominent in Norway. In addition, I have liked his often contrarian and self-assured attitude to what has been the accepted way of looking at the great works of Norwegian literature, not least demonstrated by his book on Knut Hamsun from 2004 – Solgudens fall. This being said, I was also during my reading of Dommedag og djevlepakt frequently irritated and in vehement disagreement both by his analyses and his methodological and theoretical approach, despite often finding many aspects of his concrete examinations of the dramas insightful. In the programmatic brief foreword to the book, Haugan states some principles that guides his reading. The first is that he will","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1099871","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1087714
Anders Skare Malvik
Literary history is often seen in the light of the history of ideas, and rarely as corresponding to the media technologies that transmit these ideas. It would, however, be difficult to explain the international success of the Norwegian “Modern Breakthrough authors” without taking into account the transnational mediation of the political, social, philosophical, and esthetic ideas of the period. “The Modern Breakthrough” in Norwegian literature is not just a response to Georg Brandes’ 1871 call to arms. It is also an esthetic response to a media technological revolution that radically changed Norwegian society in the second half of the nineteenth century. As media historians Henrik G. Bastiansen and Hans Fredrik Dahl have emphasized, the years of Ibsen’s literary production delineates an epoch of faster and more powerful media developments than ever before in history. Catilina (1950) was published four years before Norway got its first railroad. When We Dead Awaken (1899) was written in Arbien’s Street in Kristiana, while they were screening cinema shows down the street (Bastiansen and Dahl 2003a). The railroad, telegraph, photography, film, phonograph, and telephone all surface in Norway within this short period of less than 50 years. These technologies dramatically changed the scales and patterns of human interaction during Ibsen’s time, and it would be naïve to think that the playwright did not in some way chart their societal impact. But how do we read Ibsen from a media perspective? The aim of this article is to show how Ibsen’s problem plays respond to the rise of the newspaper industry in late nineteenth
文学史通常被视为思想史，而很少与传播这些思想的媒介技术相对应。然而，如果不考虑到这一时期政治、社会、哲学和美学思想的跨国调解，就很难解释挪威“现代突破作家”在国际上的成功。挪威文学的“现代突破”不仅仅是对乔治·布兰德斯1871年号召战斗的回应。这也是对19世纪下半叶从根本上改变挪威社会的媒体技术革命的美学回应。正如媒体历史学家亨里克·g·巴斯蒂安森和汉斯·弗雷德里克·达尔所强调的那样，易卜生的文学创作描绘了一个比历史上任何时候都更快、更强大的媒体发展时代。《卡蒂琳娜》(1950)出版的四年后，挪威建成了第一条铁路。《当我们死去，觉醒》(1899)是在克里斯蒂安娜的阿比恩街创作的，当时他们正在街上放映电影(Bastiansen and Dahl 2003a)。铁路、电报、摄影、电影、留声机和电话都在这不到50年的短时间内出现在挪威。在易卜生的时代，这些技术极大地改变了人类互动的规模和模式，认为剧作家没有以某种方式描绘出它们的社会影响是naïve。但是，我们如何从媒体的角度来解读易卜生呢?本文旨在探讨易卜生的问题剧如何回应19世纪末报业的兴起
{"title":"The Advent of Noo-politics in Ibsen’s Problem Plays","authors":"Anders Skare Malvik","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1087714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087714","url":null,"abstract":"Literary history is often seen in the light of the history of ideas, and rarely as corresponding to the media technologies that transmit these ideas. It would, however, be difficult to explain the international success of the Norwegian “Modern Breakthrough authors” without taking into account the transnational mediation of the political, social, philosophical, and esthetic ideas of the period. “The Modern Breakthrough” in Norwegian literature is not just a response to Georg Brandes’ 1871 call to arms. It is also an esthetic response to a media technological revolution that radically changed Norwegian society in the second half of the nineteenth century. As media historians Henrik G. Bastiansen and Hans Fredrik Dahl have emphasized, the years of Ibsen’s literary production delineates an epoch of faster and more powerful media developments than ever before in history. Catilina (1950) was published four years before Norway got its first railroad. When We Dead Awaken (1899) was written in Arbien’s Street in Kristiana, while they were screening cinema shows down the street (Bastiansen and Dahl 2003a). The railroad, telegraph, photography, film, phonograph, and telephone all surface in Norway within this short period of less than 50 years. These technologies dramatically changed the scales and patterns of human interaction during Ibsen’s time, and it would be naïve to think that the playwright did not in some way chart their societal impact. But how do we read Ibsen from a media perspective? The aim of this article is to show how Ibsen’s problem plays respond to the rise of the newspaper industry in late nineteenth","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087714","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1087715
O. Gunn
Symbolist playwright Maurice Maeterlinck’s l’Intruse (1890, The Intruder) and Henrik Ibsen’s Bygmester Solness were first staged together at Théâtre de l’Œuvre on 13 April, 1894. The day before this performance, Maeterlinck’s “A Propos de Solness le Constructeur” (Concerning The Master Builder), was published in le Figaro. In 1896, it was revised and included in le Trésor des Humbles as “le Tragique Quotidien.” Materlinck used his revision to expand on the observation that “Solness est un drame à peu près sans action” (Solness is a drama almost without action), thereby creating a kind of manifesto for modern, “static” theater (A propos de Solness). The Master Builder’s innovative and static qualities were immediately apparent to actors and directors, who struggled to find effective ways of staging Ibsen. At Théâtre de l’Œuvre, Aurélien Lugné-Poe dealt with Ibsen’s innovation by turning to Maeterlinck’s metaphysical interpretation of the play, emphasizing the tacit presence of “occult forces” and Solness’s “personal magnetism” (Deak 1993, 205). The Master Builder – with its tower, dead babies and mourned dolls, its trolls and strange helpers, and its castle in the air “med grundmur under” (with foundations underneath)” – has often been treated as a (lower case) symbolist drama (Ibsen 1892, 89). Nonetheless, Maeterlinck’s perception of a strong affinity between The Master Builder and his own understanding of the ideal modern theater strikes some critics as odd or wrong – especially if they understand Ibsen as a preeminent realist and realism as the precursor to or opponent of Symbolism. One critic particularly averse to the Symbolist interpretation of Ibsen is Joan Templeton, who claims naturalist director André Antoine as the better and more correct director for staging
1894年4月13日，象征主义剧作家莫里斯·梅特林克的《闯入者》(1890年，《闯入者》)和亨里克·易卜生的《比格梅斯特·索恩斯》首次在th tre de l ' Œuvre上演。演出前一天，梅特林克的《关于建筑大师》(A Propos de Solness le Constructeur)发表在《费加罗报》上。1896年，它被修订，并被纳入《卑微的人生》，称为《每日悲剧》。materlink利用他的修正扩展了“Solness est un dramepeu propts sans action”(Solness是一部几乎没有动作的戏剧)的观察，从而为现代“静态”戏剧创造了一种宣言(a propos de Solness)。建筑师大师的创新和静态的品质立即显而易见的演员和导演，谁努力寻找有效的方式上演易卜生。在《thsam tre de l ' Œuvre》中，奥尔姆·卢格姆·坡通过借鉴梅特林克对戏剧的形而上解释来处理易卜生的创新，强调“神秘力量”的隐性存在和索尔尼斯的“个人魅力”(Deak 1993, 205)。《建造大师》——有它的高塔、死去的婴儿和哀悼的娃娃、巨魔和奇怪的助手，还有它的空中城堡“med grundmur under”(下面有地基)——经常被视为(大写)象征主义戏剧(易卜生1892,89)。尽管如此，梅特林克认为《建筑大师》与他自己对理想现代戏剧的理解之间有着强烈的亲和力，这让一些评论家感到奇怪或错误——尤其是如果他们把易卜生理解为杰出的现实主义，而现实主义是象征主义的先驱或反对者的话。琼·坦普尔顿(Joan Templeton)是一位特别反对易卜生的象征主义解读的评论家，她声称自然主义导演安德烈·安托万(andr Antoine)是更好、更正确的舞台导演
{"title":"The Master Builder’s Tragic Quotidian","authors":"O. Gunn","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1087715","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087715","url":null,"abstract":"Symbolist playwright Maurice Maeterlinck’s l’Intruse (1890, The Intruder) and Henrik Ibsen’s Bygmester Solness were first staged together at Théâtre de l’Œuvre on 13 April, 1894. The day before this performance, Maeterlinck’s “A Propos de Solness le Constructeur” (Concerning The Master Builder), was published in le Figaro. In 1896, it was revised and included in le Trésor des Humbles as “le Tragique Quotidien.” Materlinck used his revision to expand on the observation that “Solness est un drame à peu près sans action” (Solness is a drama almost without action), thereby creating a kind of manifesto for modern, “static” theater (A propos de Solness). The Master Builder’s innovative and static qualities were immediately apparent to actors and directors, who struggled to find effective ways of staging Ibsen. At Théâtre de l’Œuvre, Aurélien Lugné-Poe dealt with Ibsen’s innovation by turning to Maeterlinck’s metaphysical interpretation of the play, emphasizing the tacit presence of “occult forces” and Solness’s “personal magnetism” (Deak 1993, 205). The Master Builder – with its tower, dead babies and mourned dolls, its trolls and strange helpers, and its castle in the air “med grundmur under” (with foundations underneath)” – has often been treated as a (lower case) symbolist drama (Ibsen 1892, 89). Nonetheless, Maeterlinck’s perception of a strong affinity between The Master Builder and his own understanding of the ideal modern theater strikes some critics as odd or wrong – especially if they understand Ibsen as a preeminent realist and realism as the precursor to or opponent of Symbolism. One critic particularly averse to the Symbolist interpretation of Ibsen is Joan Templeton, who claims naturalist director André Antoine as the better and more correct director for staging","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1087715","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1099862
Ellen Rees
Introduction Erik Bjerck Hagen is an engaging and often polemical scholar committed to a narrative about the study of literature in which – essentially – little scholarship of value is produced after 1970, or better yet after World War II. In his latest book, he sets out to prove this in relation to Ibsen scholarship. The core of his argument is that scholars who attempt to use critical theory to interpret Ibsen add nothing substantive to what we already know through the insights and hard work of earlier critics and scholars. Hagen points out that Hvordan lese Ibsen? is “like mye en bok om norsk forskningsog kritikkhistorie som om Ibsen” (9) [just as much a book about the history of Norwegian research and criticism as about Ibsen]. This is an ambitious claim that requires extensive empirical data and careful analysis to support. The book’s greatest strength is that it unearths a great deal of insightful Ibsen criticism that, as Hagen rightly points out, contemporary scholars have neglected or ignored for far too long. Hagen chooses five of Ibsen’s works and then dedicates a chapter to each, in which he establishes an interpretive consensus for the play in question, and then discusses a handful of theory-informed readings of it that he views as misguided. The methodological problems with this approach should be glaringly obvious. The four post1970 analyses of A Doll House that Hagen chooses to engage with, for example, are in no way representative; they are simply four analyses with which Hagen happens to disagree. His critiques of the scholarship are in many cases insightful, interesting, and always engagingly written, but to extrapolate further that this says anything meaningful about the state of Norwegian Ibsen scholarship as a whole after
Erik Bjerck Hagen是一位引人入胜且经常争论不休的学者，他致力于文学研究的叙事，而在1970年之后，或者更好的是在二战之后，几乎没有什么有价值的学术成果产生。在他的最新著作中，他试图通过易卜生的研究来证明这一点。他的论点的核心是，那些试图用批判理论来解释易卜生的学者，对我们通过早期批评家和学者的见解和辛勤工作已经知道的东西，没有任何实质性的补充。哈根指出，赫渥丹是易卜生吗?“就像我从挪威学来的关于skningsog kritikkhistorie some Ibsen的书”(9)[既是一本关于易卜生的书，也是一本关于挪威研究和批评的历史的书]。这是一个雄心勃勃的主张，需要大量的实证数据和仔细的分析来支持。这本书最大的优势在于，它揭示了易卜生的大量富有洞察力的批评，正如哈根正确指出的那样，当代学者已经忽视或忽视了太长时间。哈根选择了易卜生的五部作品，然后用一章的篇幅来介绍每一部作品，在这一章中，他为有问题的戏剧建立了一种解释共识，然后讨论了一些他认为被误导的理论知识解读。这种方法的方法论问题应该是显而易见的。例如，哈根选择参与的1970年后对《玩偶之家》的四次分析，绝不具有代表性;它们只是黑根碰巧不同意的四种分析。他对学术的评论在很多情况下都很有见地，有趣，而且总是写得很吸引人，但进一步推断，这说明了挪威易卜生学术的整体状态
{"title":"Hvordan lese Ibsen? Samtalen om hans dramatikk 1879–2015","authors":"Ellen Rees","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1099862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1099862","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Erik Bjerck Hagen is an engaging and often polemical scholar committed to a narrative about the study of literature in which – essentially – little scholarship of value is produced after 1970, or better yet after World War II. In his latest book, he sets out to prove this in relation to Ibsen scholarship. The core of his argument is that scholars who attempt to use critical theory to interpret Ibsen add nothing substantive to what we already know through the insights and hard work of earlier critics and scholars. Hagen points out that Hvordan lese Ibsen? is “like mye en bok om norsk forskningsog kritikkhistorie som om Ibsen” (9) [just as much a book about the history of Norwegian research and criticism as about Ibsen]. This is an ambitious claim that requires extensive empirical data and careful analysis to support. The book’s greatest strength is that it unearths a great deal of insightful Ibsen criticism that, as Hagen rightly points out, contemporary scholars have neglected or ignored for far too long. Hagen chooses five of Ibsen’s works and then dedicates a chapter to each, in which he establishes an interpretive consensus for the play in question, and then discusses a handful of theory-informed readings of it that he views as misguided. The methodological problems with this approach should be glaringly obvious. The four post1970 analyses of A Doll House that Hagen chooses to engage with, for example, are in no way representative; they are simply four analyses with which Hagen happens to disagree. His critiques of the scholarship are in many cases insightful, interesting, and always engagingly written, but to extrapolate further that this says anything meaningful about the state of Norwegian Ibsen scholarship as a whole after","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1099862","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2014.998046
L. Senelick
Flying into Moscow from the West in the Soviet era, one could see the city ringed round by a green belt. This was the Khimki Forest, an immemorial woodland of old-growth birch trees that harbored a dense ecology of flora and fauna. Nowadays the passenger sees the forest pocked by the roofs of Mcmansions, built by oligarchs in defiance of zoning laws or natural topography. What’s worse, a highway to St Petersburg has been projected, evoking mass protest on environmental grounds. The project was suspended in 2010, but not before Mikhail Beketov, a crusading investigative reporter, was severely beaten, losing one leg and four fingers as a result. Beketov died in Khimki on 8 April 2013 of cardiac arrest, a belated result of the attack. Three weeks later, the first Russian production of An Enemy of the People in over a century opened at the Mayakovsky Theatre in Moscow. The poster displayed a Victorian gentleman in a morning coat and top hat, wearing a gas mask. It signaled that the production would be a provocation. The title itself was a challenge. Konstantin Stanislavsky’s production of 1901 had been called, less provocatively, Doctor Stockmann. “Enemy of the people” (vrag naroda), originally a Jacobin term of abuse, was revived by Lenin in 1917 to tar the Constitutional Democratic Party. The aspersion was cast far and wide by Stalin during the agrarian collectivization movement of the early 1930s to attack “kulaks,” recalcitrant peasants, and again during the purges of 1937. The accused were made to denounce themselves and others as enemies of the people, an accusation constantly repeated in the charge sheets. In a Russian context, it is heavily freightedwith sinister connotations. Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 91–108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.998046
{"title":"How Ibsen Fared in Russian Culture and Politics","authors":"L. Senelick","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2014.998046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.998046","url":null,"abstract":"Flying into Moscow from the West in the Soviet era, one could see the city ringed round by a green belt. This was the Khimki Forest, an immemorial woodland of old-growth birch trees that harbored a dense ecology of flora and fauna. Nowadays the passenger sees the forest pocked by the roofs of Mcmansions, built by oligarchs in defiance of zoning laws or natural topography. What’s worse, a highway to St Petersburg has been projected, evoking mass protest on environmental grounds. The project was suspended in 2010, but not before Mikhail Beketov, a crusading investigative reporter, was severely beaten, losing one leg and four fingers as a result. Beketov died in Khimki on 8 April 2013 of cardiac arrest, a belated result of the attack. Three weeks later, the first Russian production of An Enemy of the People in over a century opened at the Mayakovsky Theatre in Moscow. The poster displayed a Victorian gentleman in a morning coat and top hat, wearing a gas mask. It signaled that the production would be a provocation. The title itself was a challenge. Konstantin Stanislavsky’s production of 1901 had been called, less provocatively, Doctor Stockmann. “Enemy of the people” (vrag naroda), originally a Jacobin term of abuse, was revived by Lenin in 1917 to tar the Constitutional Democratic Party. The aspersion was cast far and wide by Stalin during the agrarian collectivization movement of the early 1930s to attack “kulaks,” recalcitrant peasants, and again during the purges of 1937. The accused were made to denounce themselves and others as enemies of the people, an accusation constantly repeated in the charge sheets. In a Russian context, it is heavily freightedwith sinister connotations. Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 91–108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.998046","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2014.998046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2014.999456
Giuliano D’Amico
The present book is a biographical dictionary of Henrik Ibsen's letters, based on volumes XII–XV of the new edition of his collected writings, Henrik Ibsens Skrifter (HIS, 2005–2010). It groups tog...
{"title":"Biografisk leksikon til Ibsens brev – med tidstavle","authors":"Giuliano D’Amico","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2014.999456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.999456","url":null,"abstract":"The present book is a biographical dictionary of Henrik Ibsen's letters, based on volumes XII–XV of the new edition of his collected writings, Henrik Ibsens Skrifter (HIS, 2005–2010). It groups tog...","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2014.999456","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904
Julia A. Walker
In the fall of 1869, Henrik Ibsen represented Norway at the ceremonies marking the inauguration of the Suez Canal. As a seafaring nation with a robust shipping economy, Norway had strong interests in the success of this unprecedented engineering feat whereby 98 miles of inland desert was cut away, creating an unbroken passageway between European ports with access to the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern ports beyond the Red Sea. Ibsen, ever flattered by official forms of recognition, was happy to attend, finding himself in the company of other cultural luminaries, such as Théophile Gautier and Émile Zola among the 1600 guests in attendance (Farnie 1969, 83–87). Aside from his diary and a few poems, Ibsen wrote very little that explicitly addressed the Canal and his experiences in Egypt. Shortly thereafter, however, he completed his monumental Emperor and Galilean (1873) and sketched out notes for Pillars of Society (1877), plays that would mark a stylistic break with the poetic dramas of his early career and set the template for the realistic prose plays that announced the arrival of modern drama. Although critics have traditionally understood Ibsen’s stylistic shift to have been prompted by his intense intellectual exchange with the Danish critic Georg Brandes (see, e.g., Styan 1981, 19), I argue that it was also prompted by his experiences in Egypt. After all, Brandes’s Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature (1871), with its imperative to address the social problems of the day, explains only the shift in subject matter that distinguishes Ibsen’s late from his early plays. It does not account for the development of his modernist dramatic form. Recent critics have attributed Ibsen’s stylistic shift to his break with idealist esthetics, finding both narrative and formal evidence to Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 136–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904
{"title":"Suez Modernism: Transportation, History, and Ibsen's Stylistic Shift","authors":"Julia A. Walker","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904","url":null,"abstract":"In the fall of 1869, Henrik Ibsen represented Norway at the ceremonies marking the inauguration of the Suez Canal. As a seafaring nation with a robust shipping economy, Norway had strong interests in the success of this unprecedented engineering feat whereby 98 miles of inland desert was cut away, creating an unbroken passageway between European ports with access to the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern ports beyond the Red Sea. Ibsen, ever flattered by official forms of recognition, was happy to attend, finding himself in the company of other cultural luminaries, such as Théophile Gautier and Émile Zola among the 1600 guests in attendance (Farnie 1969, 83–87). Aside from his diary and a few poems, Ibsen wrote very little that explicitly addressed the Canal and his experiences in Egypt. Shortly thereafter, however, he completed his monumental Emperor and Galilean (1873) and sketched out notes for Pillars of Society (1877), plays that would mark a stylistic break with the poetic dramas of his early career and set the template for the realistic prose plays that announced the arrival of modern drama. Although critics have traditionally understood Ibsen’s stylistic shift to have been prompted by his intense intellectual exchange with the Danish critic Georg Brandes (see, e.g., Styan 1981, 19), I argue that it was also prompted by his experiences in Egypt. After all, Brandes’s Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature (1871), with its imperative to address the social problems of the day, explains only the shift in subject matter that distinguishes Ibsen’s late from his early plays. It does not account for the development of his modernist dramatic form. Recent critics have attributed Ibsen’s stylistic shift to his break with idealist esthetics, finding both narrative and formal evidence to Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 136–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2015.1005904","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659
K. Gjesdal
Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1882) has had an unusual reception. Following A Doll’s House (1879) andGhosts (1881), plays that were scandalized upon performance only to be counted, relatively soon, among Ibsen’s most important works, An Enemy of the Peoplewas caught up by history in a different way. While the play has, no doubt, enjoyed bouts of popularity – including the many stagings that followed in thewake of its publication – late twentieth-centurycritics have worried about the political implications of Dr. Stockmann’s elitism and sometimes even compared it to the rhetoric of the later Nationalist Socialistmovement inGermany (Sage 2006, 3–5, 310–311; Ferguson 1996, 280ff ). The kind of elitist sentiments Dr. Stockmann airs inAn Enemy of the People are often associated with the teaching of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s work was much debated and discussed in Scandinavia when Ibsen was working on the play. Thus, critics have emphasized how Ibsen’s play resonates with a kind of aristocratic pathos that is not unlike the onewe find inwork of theGerman philosopher.While such a reading was prefigured in an essay by Anathon Aall at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, we findmore recent versions of the argument in works by Noreng (1969), de Figueiredo (2007) and Kittang (2005). In his reading ofAn Enemy of the People, Kittang speaks Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 109–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659
易卜生的《人民公敌》(1882)受到了不同寻常的欢迎。继《玩偶之家》(1879)和《鬼》(1881)两部剧之后，《人民公敌》(An Enemy of the people)以一种不同的方式被历史所关注，这两部剧在表演上受到了谴责，但很快就被列入易卜生最重要的作品之列。毫无疑问，这部戏剧受到了广泛的欢迎，包括在它出版后的许多舞台上，20世纪末的评论家们担心斯托克曼博士的精英主义的政治含义，有时甚至将其与后来的德国民族社会主义运动的修辞相比较(Sage 2006, 3-5, 310-311;Ferguson 1996, 280ff)。斯托克曼博士在《人民公敌》中所宣扬的那种精英主义情绪，常常与弗里德里希·尼采的学说联系在一起。当易卜生创作这部戏剧时，尼采的作品在斯堪的纳维亚引起了很多争论和讨论。因此，评论家们强调易卜生的戏剧是如何与一种贵族的悲怆产生共鸣的，这种悲怆与我们在这位德国哲学家的作品中发现的悲怆并没有什么不同。虽然在20世纪初，Anathon Aall在一篇文章中预言了这种解读，但我们在Noreng(1969)、de Figueiredo(2007)和Kittang(2005)的作品中发现了这种观点的最新版本。《易卜生研究》，2014年第14卷第2期，109-135页，http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659
{"title":"Nietzschean Variations: Politics, Interest, and Education in Ibsen's An Enemy of the People","authors":"K. Gjesdal","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659","url":null,"abstract":"Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1882) has had an unusual reception. Following A Doll’s House (1879) andGhosts (1881), plays that were scandalized upon performance only to be counted, relatively soon, among Ibsen’s most important works, An Enemy of the Peoplewas caught up by history in a different way. While the play has, no doubt, enjoyed bouts of popularity – including the many stagings that followed in thewake of its publication – late twentieth-centurycritics have worried about the political implications of Dr. Stockmann’s elitism and sometimes even compared it to the rhetoric of the later Nationalist Socialistmovement inGermany (Sage 2006, 3–5, 310–311; Ferguson 1996, 280ff ). The kind of elitist sentiments Dr. Stockmann airs inAn Enemy of the People are often associated with the teaching of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s work was much debated and discussed in Scandinavia when Ibsen was working on the play. Thus, critics have emphasized how Ibsen’s play resonates with a kind of aristocratic pathos that is not unlike the onewe find inwork of theGerman philosopher.While such a reading was prefigured in an essay by Anathon Aall at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, we findmore recent versions of the argument in works by Noreng (1969), de Figueiredo (2007) and Kittang (2005). In his reading ofAn Enemy of the People, Kittang speaks Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 2, 109–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2014.1000659","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15021866.2014.937152
Jens-Morten Hanssen
Henrik Ibsen is, without a doubt, an icon in the modern, secular sense of the term. One effect of his iconic standing is a recent trend within the tradition of Ibsen in performance. Ibsen is no longer just a playwright. An Ibsen production is not necessarily a staging of a play written by him. It may as well be a staging of a play written – or “pieced together” – by someone else, the plot of which is based on events in Ibsen’s life or the design of which is based on Ibsen’s works. Understandably, Ibsen may in these productions occasionally appear as a dramatic figure, as himself. In the past three decades, this trend has increased in volume, with a preliminary peak in the Ibsen Year 2006. The phenomenon is not at all restricted to Norway. Since 2006, productions like this have been traced in Norway, Mexico, USA, Italy, Argentina, Germany, England, Bangladesh, Japan, Canada, Spain, Sweden and China. The Ibsen character in these productions, if there is one, fulfils a number of dramaturgical functions. He may be portrayed in the form of a doll, a statue, a mute, an actor or an actress with lines of dialogue, of young or old age, thick or thin, tall or small. However, despite the diversity in the physical shaping of the Ibsen character, theatre audiences all over the world recognize the character as Ibsen within a fraction of a second when he enters the stage because of the activation of a set of simple, iconographic elements: whiskers, top hat, overcoat, glasses. When did Ibsen turn into an icon? In his latest book, Ibsen og fotografene, Peter Larsen investigates the phenomenon on the basis of photographs of Ibsen. Scrutinizing all extant portrait Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 1, 52–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.937152
{"title":"The Fusion of the Man and His Work: John Gabriel Borkman with Ibsen's Mask","authors":"Jens-Morten Hanssen","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2014.937152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.937152","url":null,"abstract":"Henrik Ibsen is, without a doubt, an icon in the modern, secular sense of the term. One effect of his iconic standing is a recent trend within the tradition of Ibsen in performance. Ibsen is no longer just a playwright. An Ibsen production is not necessarily a staging of a play written by him. It may as well be a staging of a play written – or “pieced together” – by someone else, the plot of which is based on events in Ibsen’s life or the design of which is based on Ibsen’s works. Understandably, Ibsen may in these productions occasionally appear as a dramatic figure, as himself. In the past three decades, this trend has increased in volume, with a preliminary peak in the Ibsen Year 2006. The phenomenon is not at all restricted to Norway. Since 2006, productions like this have been traced in Norway, Mexico, USA, Italy, Argentina, Germany, England, Bangladesh, Japan, Canada, Spain, Sweden and China. The Ibsen character in these productions, if there is one, fulfils a number of dramaturgical functions. He may be portrayed in the form of a doll, a statue, a mute, an actor or an actress with lines of dialogue, of young or old age, thick or thin, tall or small. However, despite the diversity in the physical shaping of the Ibsen character, theatre audiences all over the world recognize the character as Ibsen within a fraction of a second when he enters the stage because of the activation of a set of simple, iconographic elements: whiskers, top hat, overcoat, glasses. When did Ibsen turn into an icon? In his latest book, Ibsen og fotografene, Peter Larsen investigates the phenomenon on the basis of photographs of Ibsen. Scrutinizing all extant portrait Ibsen Studies, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 1, 52–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2014.937152","PeriodicalId":41285,"journal":{"name":"Ibsen Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2014.937152","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59953408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：