605

p I ask this question because the very play At the Gales of the Realm must be regarded as an undoubted sign of the times. It would have been impossible at an earlier period, for example, the age of the old romanticism, with which the romanticism of our day has a great deal in common. Remember how the Romantics of the old period wrote. Shelley appealed to his people:

p Men of England, wherefore plough
For the lords who lay ye low?
Wherefore weave with toil and care
The rich robes your tyrants wear?
Wherefore feed, and clothe, and save,
From the cradle to the grave,
Those ungrateful drones who would
Drain your sweat—nay, drink your blood?
Wherefore, Bees of England, forge
Many a weapon, chain and scourge,
That these stingless drones may spoil
The forced produce of your toil? 606
Have ye leisure, comfort, calm,
Shelter, food, love’s gentle balm?
Or what is it ye buy so dear
With your pain and with your fear?
The seed ye sow, another reaps;
The wealth ye find, another keeps;
The robes ye weave, another wears;
The arms ye forge, another bears.
Sow seed,—but let no tyrant reap;
Find wealth,—let no impostor heap;
Weave robes,—let not the idle wear;
Forge arms,—-in your defence to bear.

p This is the complete opposite of what is said by Kareno who appeals not to the people but to the “terrorist”.

p Shelley could also be displeased with his people. He was angered by its shortcomings. But what did he regard as its shortcomings? Not that this people was striving for its freedom, but, quite the reverse, that it was not striving for freedom enough.

p Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells;
In halls ye deck another dwells.
Why shake the chains ye wrought?
Ye see
The steel ye tempered glance on ye.

p These feelings are the complete opposite of those which inspire the tragi-comic Kareno. True, Shelley was also, if not the only, at least a rare exception to the general rule. In general the Romantics were by no means such lovers of the people as he. They too were the ideologists of the bourgeoisie and frequently regarded the people as the “mob” fit only to serve as the foot-stool for outstanding individuals. Byron, for example, was not entirely innocent of this sin.  [606•*  But Byron also hated despotism, and Byron was able to sympathise with the popular liberation movements of his day. But not only Byron and the Romantics! Remember the proud and noble words that Goethe’s Prometheus addresses to Zeus:

p Ich dich ehren? Wofur?
Hast du die Schmerzen gelindert
Je des Beladenen? 607
Hast du die Thrdnen geslillet
Je des Gedngsteten?  [607•* 

p Here—even in the “Olympian” Goethe!—we again see feelings that are the direct opposite of those which characterise Kareno’s mood. If Kareno, who, according to Hamsun’s intention, is also supposed to be a kind of rebellious titan, were to take it into his head to express his discontent with the gods, he would, of course, reproach Zeus not for being impartial to human suffering, but for being too partial to it. He would find that "the father of the gods and men" had not assimilated properly the ethics of the strong, as he, Ivar Kareno, "bachelor of philosophy”, understands it.

p In a word, what we have here is a whole revolution. It would be of great theoretical importance to trace how this revolution was prepared in the West European literatures. I am quite unable to do so here. But I should like to point out that a certain amount—very, very little, it is true—has already been done in this direction, primarily by the French. Among the works containing a great deal of information that would help to describe the sociopsychological process of interest to us here is Rene Canat’s book Du Sentiment de la solitude morale chez les romantiques et les parnassiens" (Paris, 1904). Canat makes some interesting remarks on how the features of the Byronic type “(type byronien”), so dear to the Romantics, have gradually changed in France. He says that features of this type can be found, inter alia, in Baudelaire and Flaubert. "The last outstanding person of the Byronic type was the amusing (amusant) Barbey d’Aurevilly" (p. 52).

p I think this is right. But remember how the “amusing” Barbey d’Aurevilly regarded the emancipatory ideas of his day. In his description of the poet Laurent-Pichat we read: "If he had resolved to trample in the mud (fouler aux pieds) atheism and democracy, these two shameful blemishes on his thought (ces deux deshonneurs de sa pensee) ... he would, perhaps, have been a great poet in all respects, whereas he remained only a fragment of a great poet."  [607•**  One can find many such comments in him. Barbey d’Aurevilly was an ardent supporter of Catholicism and an equally ardent opponent of democracy. As far as we can judge from a few rather vague hints, Hamsun makes his Ivar Kareno the enemy not only of Catholicism but of Christianity in general.  [607•***  608 In this respect Ivar Kareno is very far from "the last outstanding person of the Byronic type”. But he is extremely close to him in respect of politics: we are well aware how much Kareno hates democracy. Here he would willingly shake hands with Barbey d’Aurevilly. And this means that one of the most important features of his character links him with the degenerate "Byronic type”. If his father was Doctor Stockmann, his more remote ancestors probably included some Byronists.

p This is how the matter stands from the point of view of psychology. But how does it stand from the point of view of sociology? Why has the "Byronic type" degenerated? Why are "outstanding people”, who once hated despotism and more or less sympathised with the liberation movements of the peoples, now ready to applaud despots and trample in the mud the emancipatory aspirations of the working class? Because social relations have changed radically. Bourgeois society is now going through an entirely different stage of its development. It was young when the real (i.e., not degenerate) "Byronic type" shone.  [608•*  It is on the decline now, when the Nietzschean type, of which Ivar Kareno is a representative, is shining in its peculiar way, like a new brass nickel.

p The Nietzscheans regard themselves as the sworn enemies of Philistinism. Yet in fact they are totally imbued with its spirit.

We have already seen how their characteristic philistinism affected the work of Knut Hamsun: this very fine artist has reached the point at which one of his characters produces a tragicomic impression, whereas, according to the author’s intention, he is supposed to impress us as being profoundly tragic. This is very bad indeed. It must be acknowledged here that the antiproletarian bias of modern “heroic” philistines is most detrimental to the interests of art.