459

p What is the reason? In order to find it, one must first understand the socio-psychological conditions of Ibsen’s success in those countries in the West in which the development of socio-economic relations had reached a far higher level than in Scandinavia.

p Brandes says: "Una ausserhalb des eigenen Landes durchzudringen, bedarf es mehr als der Starke des Talentes....

p “Es muss ausser dem Talent auch Empfanglichkeit dafiir vorhanden sein. Unter seinen eigenen Landsleuten schafft der hervorragende Geist sich diese Empfanglichkeit entweder langsam selbst oder er fiihlt nervos voraus und benutzt die Stromungen in den Geimitern, die er vorfmdet oder die unmittelbar kommen werden. Aber Ibsen konnte diese Empfanglichkeit innerhalb eines fremden Sprachkreises, der nichts von ihm wusste, nicht schaffen, und selbst wo er etwas Kommendes vorausgeahnt zu haben scheint, fand er friiher keinen Anklang."  [459•* 

p This is quite true. In such cases talent alone is never enough. The inhabitants of mediaeval Rome not only did not admire the artistic works of antiquity, but actually burnt old statues in order to obtain lime from them. Then a different age dawned, when the Romans and the Italians in general began to admire antique art and take it as a model. In the long period during which the inhabitants of Rome—and not Rome alone—so savagely destroyed the great works of antique sculpture, there was slowly taking place in the inner life of mediaeval society a process that changed its structure profoundly, and as a result of this also the views, feelings and tastes of the people who formed it. The changes in being (des Seins) led to changes in consciousness (des Bewusstseins), and only these latter changes made the Romans of the age of the Renaissance capable of enjoying the works of antique art, 460 or to be more precise, only these latter changes made the " Renaissance" itself possible.

p In general, for an artist or a writer of any country to influencethe minds of the inhabitants of other countries it is essential that the mood of this artist or writer should correspond to the mood of the foreigners who read his works. Hence it follows that if Ibsen’s influence spread far beyond the borders of his native land, this means that his works contained features that corresponded to the mood of the reading public in the modern civilised world. What are these features?

p Brandes refers to Ibsen’s individualism, to his contempt for the majority.  He says:

p “Der erste Schritt zu Freiheit und Grosse ist, Person zu haben. Wer wenig Person hat, ist nur ein Bruchteil eines Menschen, wer gar keine hat, ist eine Null. Aber nur die Nullen sind sich gleich. Man hat im heutigen Deutschland von neuem Leonardo da Vincis Worte bestatigt: ’Alle Nullen der Welt sind, was ihren Inhalt und Wert anbetrifft, gleich einer einzigen Null.’ Hier allein ist das Gleichheitsideal erreicht. Und man glaubt nicht an das Gleichheitsideal in den denkenden Kreisen Deutschlands. Henrik Ibsen glaubt nicht daran. Man ist in Deutschland vielfach der Ansicht, dass nach der Zeit des Majoritatsglaubens die Zeit des Minoritatsglaubens kommen wird und Ibsen ist der Mann des Minoritatsglaubens. Viele behaupten endlich, dass der Weg zum Fortschritt durch die Isolierung der einzelnen geht. Henrik Ibsen schlagt in diesen Gedankenweg ein."  [460•* 

p Here again Brandes is partly right. The so-called thinking circles in Germany (denkende Kreise Deutschlands) are indeed little inclined towards the “Gleichheitsideal” or to the " Majoritatsglauben”. The fact of this disinclination is rightly pointed out by Brandes. But he explains it wrongly. According to him_r striving for the Gleichheitsideal is incompatible with striving for the development of the individual and it is for this reason that "thinking circles in Germany" reject the ideal in question. But this is not true. Who would dare to maintain that "thinking circles" in France on the eve of the Great Revolution valued the 461 interests of the “individual” less than the same circles in Germany today? Yet “thinking” Frenchmen of that time were far better disposed to the idea of equality than the present-day Germans. The majority (Majoritat) also frightened these Frenchmen far less than it frightens “thinking” Germans today. No one will doubt that Abbe Sieyes and his followers belonged to “thinking” French circles of that time, yet Sieyes’ main argument in favour of the interests of the third estate was the fact that they were the interests of the majority, which conflicted only with the interests of a small handful of privileged people. So here it is not a question of the qualities of the actual ideal of equality or of the actual idea of the majority, but of the historical conditions in which the "thinking circles" of a given country deal with these ideas. Thinking circles in eighteenth-century France held, the point of view of the more or less revolutionary bourgeoisie, which in its opposition to the ecclesiastical and secular aristocracy regarded itself as being at one with the vast mass of the population, i.e., with the “majority”. However present-day "thinking circles in Germany”,—and not only in Germany, but in all the countries where the capitalist mode of production has become fully established,—in the vast majority of cases hold the viewpoint of the bourgeoisie, which has realised that its class interests are closer to the interests of the aristocracy, which, incidentally, has now also become full of bourgeois spirit, than to the interests of the proletariat, which forms the majority of the population in the leading capitalist countries. Therefore "belief in the majority" “( Majoritatsglauben”) evokes unpleasant ideas in these circles; therefore it seems to them incompatible with the idea of the “individual”; therefore they become increasingly filled with "belief in the minority" (“Minoritatsglauben”). The revolutionary bourgeoisie in eighteenth-century France applauded Rousseau, whom, incidentally, it did not fully understand; the present-day bourgeoisie in Germany applauds Nietzsche, in whom it immediately sensed with its true class instinct the poet and ideologist of class rule. But be that as it may, there is no doubt that Ibsen’s individualism really does correspond to the "belief in the minority" ( Minoritatsglauben) which is characteristic of the bourgeois "thinking circles" in the modern capitalist world. In a letter to Brandes of September 24, 1871 Ibsen says: "Par-dessus tout, je vous souhaite un robuste egoisme qui vous fasse considerer ce que vous appartient en propre comme ayant seul une valeur, une importance reelle, tout le reste n’existe pas."  [461•*  The mood of these lines not only does not contradict the mood of the “thinking” 462 bourgeois of our day, but coincides with it entirely. And in the same way the mood which dictated the following lines in the same letter also coincides with it: "Je n’ai jamais fortement compris la solidarite. Je 1’ai acceptee ainsi qu’un traditionnel article de for, si Ton avait le courage de 1’ecarter completement, on se delivrerait du poids le plus lourd qui gene la personnalite.” Finally, no “thinking” bourgeois full of class consciousness ( Klassenbewusster) could feel anything but the greatest sympathy for the man who wrote these words: "Je ne crois pas que dans les autres pays les choses aillent mieux que dans le notre. Partout les interets superieurs sont etrangers a la masse...."  [462•* 

p More than ten years later in a letter to Brandes Ibsen said: "De toutes facons je ne pourrais jamais etre d’un parti qui aurait la majorite pour lui. Bjornson dit: ’La majorite a toujours raison....’ Mais moi, je dis: ’La minorite a toujours raison.’"  [462•**  Such words can again evoke only approval from the " individualistically" inclined ideologists of the present-day bourgeoisie. And since the mood expressed in these words coloured all Ibsen’s dramatic works it is not surprising that these works attracted the attention of this kind of ideologists and that the latter were “receptive” (“empfanglich”) to them. True, the ancient Romans were right in saying that when two people say the same thing it is not the same thing (non est idem). For Ibsen the word “minority” was associated with a completely different idea than for the bourgeois reading public of the leading capitalist countries. Ibsen makes the reservation: "... Je pense a cette minorite qui marche en avant, laissant derriere elle la majorite. J’estime que celui-la a raison qui est plus pres d’etre en intelligence avec 1’avenir."  [462•*** 

p Ibsen’s aspirations and views were formed, as we already know, in a country where there was no revolutionary proletariat and where the backward popular masses were themselves pettybourgeois to the core. These masses, indeed, could not become the bearer of a progressive ideal. Therefore any movement forward was bound to be seen by Ibsen in the form of a movement of the “minority”, i.e., of a small handful of thinking individuals. This was not the case in the countries of developed capitalist production. There the movement forward was evidently bound to become 463 or, rather, was evidently bound to strive to become a movement of the exploited majority.  For people brought up in the social conditions in which Ibsen was brought up "belief in the minority" (“Minoritatsglauben”) is a perfectly innocent thing. Moreover, it serves as an expression of the progressive aspirations of the small oasis of the intelligentsia that is surrounded by the arid desert of philistinism. In the "thinking circles" of the leading capitalist countries, on the contrary, this belief signifies conservative opposition to the revolutionary demands of the working masses. When two people say the same thing, it is not the same thing. Nor is it the same thing when two people "believe in the minority”. But when one person preaches "belief in the minority" (“Minoritatsglauben”) his preaching can and should meet with sympathy from another person who shares the same belief, even though he may share it for entirely different psychological reasons. This was the case with Ibsen. His bitter, deeply-felt attacks on the “majority” were applauded by many of those for whom the “majority” was first and foremost the proletariat striving for its liberation. Ibsen was attacking a “majority” which was alien to all progressive aspirations, but he enjoyed the sympathy of those who feared the progressive aspirations of the “majority”.

p Let us proceed further. Brandes continues: "Priift man aber diesen (d. h. den Ibsenschen.—G.P.) Individualismus genau nach, so wird man in ihm einen verborgenen Sozialismus entdecken, der schon in Stiitzen der Gesellschaft zu verspiiren ist, und der in Ibsens begeistcrter Erwiderung an die Arbeiter in Drontheim wahrend seines letzten Besuches im Norden zum Ausbruch kam...."  [463•* 

p As I have already remarked above, it would take a great deal of good will to discover socialism in Stiitzen der Gesellschaft. In fact Ibsen’s socialism amounted to the worthy, but extremely vague desire "to lift the people to a higher level”. But this too not only did not prevent, but, on the contrary, greatly promoted Ibsen’s success in "thinking circles in Germany" and in other capitalist countries. If Ibsen had really been a socialist, he could not have enjoyed the sympathy of those whose "belief in the minority" was engendered by fear of the revolutionary movement of the “majority”. But precisely because Ibsen’s “socialism” did not signify anything more than the desire "to lift the people to a higher level”, he could and was bound to please those who were ready to grasp at social reform as a means of preventing social revolution. Here a qui pro quo took place, just like the one which 464 took place in relation to the "belief in the minority" “( Minoritatsglauben”). Ibsen went no further than the aspiration "to lift the people to a higher level" for the reason that his views were formed under the influence of a petty-bourgeois society, the process of development of which had not yet advanced the great socialist task, but this limited nature of Ibsen’s aspirations ensured him success in the upper class (in the "thinking circles”) of those societies, the entire inner life of which is now determined by the existence of this great task.

p It must be recalled, incidentally, that even Ibsen’s highly limited reformatory aspirations can barely be felt in his dramatic works. In them his thought remains apolitical in the broadest sense of the word, i.e., alien to social questions. In them he preaches the "purification of the will”, "the revolt of the human spirit”, but he does not know what aim the "purified will" should set itself, or against what social relations the human spirit "in revolt" should fight. This again is a major defect, but this major defect like the two referred to above, was also bound to promote Ibsen’s success greatly in the "thinking circles" of the capitalist world. These circles could sympathise with "the revolt of the human spirit" as long as it took place for the sake of revolt, i.e., lacked an aim, i.e., did not threaten the existing social order. The "thinking circles" of the bourgeois class could sympathise greatly with Brand who promised:

p Over frozen height and hollow,
Over all the land we’ll fare,
Loose each soul-destroying snare
That this people holds in fee,
Lift and lighten, and set free__

p But if the selfsame Brand had made it clear that he was lifting and lightening souls not only in order to make them walk over frozen height and hollow, but also in order to arouse them to take some definite revolutionary action, the "thinking circles" would have looked upon him in horror as a “demagogue” and declared Ibsen to be a "tendentious writer". And here Ibsen would not have been helped by his talent, here it would have been obvious that the "thinking circles" do not possess the Empfanglichkeit  [464•*  necessary for the appreciation of talent.

p It is now clear why Ibsen’s weakness, which consisted of his inability to find an outlet from morality into politics and which affected his works by introducing into them the element of symbolism and rationality, not only did not harm him, but was to his advantage in the opinion of the greater part of the reading public. The "ideal people”, the "human poodles" in Ibsen are vague, almost 465 completely lifeless characters. But this was necessary for their success in the opinion of the "thinking circles" of the bourgeoisie: these circles can sympathise only with those "ideal people" who show nothing but a vague, indefinite striving “upwards” and are not guilty of a serious desire to "hier auf Erden schon das Himmelreich errichten".  [465•* 

p Such is the psychology of bourgeois "thinking circles" of our day, a psychology which, as we see, is explained by sociology.  This psychology has left its mark on all the art of our time. In it lies the key to the fact that symbolism is now enjoying such widespread success. The inevitable lack of clarity of the artistic images created by the Symbolists corresponds to the inevitable vagueness of the practically impotent aspirations that arise in those "thinking circles" of modern society which even in their moments of strongest discontent with the reality around them cannot rise to its revolutionary negation.

p Thus, the mood of bourgeois "thinking circles" created by the class struggle of our time of necessity makes modern art insipid.  The same capitalism that in the sphere of production is an obstacle to the utilisation of all the productive forces at the disposal of modern mankind is also a brake in the sphere of artistic creation.

p But what about the proletariat? Its economic position is not such that it could engage in art a great deal now. But in so far as the "thinking circles" of the proletariat have engaged in it, they were bound, of course, to adopt a definite attitude to our author.

p Being aware of the afore-mentioned defects in the thought and work of Ibsen and understanding the origin of these defects, the "thinking circles" of the proletariat cannot fail to love him as a person with a profound hatred of petty-bourgeois opportunism, and as an artist who has thrown such vivid light on the psychology of this opportunism. For "the revolt of the human spirit”, which is now expressing itself in the revolutionary striving of the proletariat, is also a revolt against the petty-bourgeois baseness, against the spiritual sluggishness which Ibsen castigated through Brand.

We see, therefore, that Ibsen is the paradoxical example of an artist who merits almost equally, although for opposite reasons, the sympathy of the "thinking circles" of the two great, irreconcilably hostile classes of modern society. Only a man who has developed in circumstances that bear little resemblance to those under which the great class struggle of our day is taking place, could be such an artist.