An Enemy of the People/The Wild Duck/Rosmersholm

by Henrik Ibsen, James Walter, James McFarlane

Taken from the Oxford Ibsen , this collection of Ibsen's plays includes An Enemy of the People , The Wild Duck , and Rosmersholm .

Genres: Plays, Drama, Fiction, Classics, Theatre, 19th Century, Literature

342 pages, paper

First published January 1, 1960

About the author

Henrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.

His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.

Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.

Reviews

[Celina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just read An Enemy of the People. Two of my favorite things, water quality and speaking truth to power. Unpredictable, too.

[Oscar Jelley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rosmersholm was a bit too soapy for my tastes, but the other two are perfect. An Enemy of the People still very timely - not just because it's about environmental pollution, but also as an assessment of the pressures that condition local politics; speaking as an employee of a combined authority, there was a certain pathological pragmatism at work here that felt, erm, familiar. Dr. Stockmann is a definite type: one of those big egos that you inevitably encounter if you get involved in fighting for a cause, admirable in very many respects but with an unattractive tendency to get slightly too wrapped up in his own posture of defiance. Gregers Werle in The Wild Duck is comparable but far more creepy in his inflexible commitment to his own ideals, an unworldly and possibly insane figure who seems to anticipate certain characters from the novels of Muriel Spark. The play is beautifully constructed and illustrates a point that is striking in relation to Ibsen's own life and work - i.e. that hypocrisy might be bad, but it's also possible to perish from the truth. (Nietzsche feels like the gay eminence behind some of this stuff, though I'm fairly sure he wasn't being widely read until at least a decade after these plays were written - something in the air, I guess.) I don't always trust my physiological response to things because e.g. the objectively rubbish 2009 Xmas film 'Nativity' always makes me weepy, but the final act of this induced a bona fide shudder of dread. Can only imagine what it's like performed.

Plays always seem festive to me - am going to spend some of Christmas reading Shakespeare, my annual tradition.

[Jacob Blais]

chill ig

[Ms.pegasus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ibsen's play, The Wild Duck immerses us in a web of human fraility so affecting that even today, over a century after it was written, we still have a visceral reaction to its characters.

The plot is simple. Gregers Werle, after an absence of 17 years, returns to his family home and renews his friendship with Hjalmar Ekdal. Hjalmar had fallen on hard times due to an illegal forestry cutting scheme for which Hjalmar's father old Ekdal went to prison. Old Ekdal was Gregers' father's business partner, but the elder Werle was acquitted and emerged unscathed. The Ekdals are now a happy family. Hjalmar is married to Gina, the Werle's former housekeeper, and they have a fourteen year old daughter, Hedwig.

Gregers is an idealist. By revealing to Hjalmar that Gina was his father's cast-off mistress, he believes the marriage will be freed from what he calls a mire of lies and ascend to a state of radiant perfection. However, his disclosure also contributes to Hjalmar's conclusion that Hedvig is the illegitimate daughter of old Werle, and he declares that he will leave both Gina and Hedwig.

We readily understand that Gregers' idealism is untethered from reality. However, Ibsen also leads us to a complexity that resonates with contemporary sensibilities. Truth is intertwined with other moral values like trust, kindness, and empathy. It requires little thought to understand that a truth can do as much damage as a lie, or that time can shift the implications of both.

Ibsen also opens up a psychological landscape with his many ambiguities. Clearly the elder Werle has committed despicable acts. His philandering caused his wife much anguish. He leveraged his social position and wealth to compromise Gina. His business success is built on illegal activities for which old Ekdal, his business partner, suffered imprisonment and disgrace. He manipulated Hjalmar with his money and feigned solicitude into marrying Gina and setting up shop as a photographer. Yet, his motives are never really made clear. Was he really worried that Gina was carrying his illegitimate child? Is it impossible to imagine that he was suffering pangs of conscience in his dotage?

Gregers' idealism, on closer examination, is also not pure. He blames his father for his mother's suffering and admits he knew, or at least strongly suspected, old Ekdal had been found guilty for what was a jointly committed crime, but failed to confront his father out of fear. On that basis we may suspect his obsession with the truth is merely a tool for both exacting revenge and as recompense for his youthful feelings of impotence.

Ibsen's play has been characterized by many as a tragi-comedy. The comedy, however, is most effectively conveyed through irony. Gregers makes much of his independence. However, in the room he has let he cannot even light the stove without starting a conflagration which he extinguishes by flooding the room. He leaves it for others to clean the mess up. Throughout the play Gregers has been contending that total truth is the sole basis for what he calls the perfect marriage. However, the only candidate for this perfection is the pending marriage between the father he despises and Mrs. Sörby after she asserts that she and old Werle have disclosed all secrets to each other. Only Hjalmar, certainly no intellectual powerhouse, grasps the irony before equivocating about its significance.

As for the tragedy, it is so profound it leaves us numbed. We are forced to reassess how we got there. There are two main characters, Gregers and Hjalmal. However, neither can be said to be tragic. Instead, the tragedy derives from their relationship to Hedwig. Hjalmar is so light-weight that according to Dr. Relling he has no personality. He accepts Hedwig's idolization like an entitlement and is willing to cast her aside after Gregers' disclosure. Gregers has listened to the expressions of imagination from a sensitive innocent child and returned that trust by off-loading the responsibility for fixing a situation he has created. His drivel about the grand gesture and the purity of sacrifice negate any sympathy or admiration we might have thought his due. It is actually the alcoholic grandfather old Ekdal who displays an emotional sympathy with Hedwig. It was through his efforts that the beloved wild duck was procured and his solicitous regard for her love of the bird has a touching innocence of its own.

For all his fine talk, it is Gregers who refuses to face the truth by maintaining that Hedwig's death was an accident. Dr. Relling knows better and bluntly tells him so. It's one truth that we can endorse wholeheartedly.

Despite all that has happened, Gregers still casts himself as a hero, the one person unafraid to enlighten others by speaking the truth. He dismisses Relling's accusation that his meddling has caused irreparable damage, declaring he has found his calling. He seizes on an earlier metaphor, the 13th at the table, employed in the beginning of the play to mean bad luck, and believes he has converted it to mean the one who will call out lies. His destiny, he declares is “to be the thirteenth at the table.” He is oblivious to the Biblical allusion to the thirteenth apostle, Judas the betrayer. His valediction is declared with such smug self-congratulatory confidence, it beggars an appropriate response. In R. Farquharson Sharp's translation, Relling can only say, So I should imagine.” James McFarland's translation has Relling's response as, “The devil it is.” I have to admit I'm partial to Robert Brustein's adaptation in which Relling spits “Oh, fuck you!”

NOTES:
I viewed the the 1984 version starring Jeremy Irons, Liv Ullman, Arthur Dignan, Rys McConnachie,and Lucinda Jones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRy7...) and a 1971 version starring Denholm Elliot the link to which I can no longer find.
I also read the three editions mentioned in my review for comparison. This is the selection for the month of our local book club.

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you like symbols and carefully constructed stories, you'll have a field day with Ibsen's The Wild Duck. In translations from the Norwegian (as from German), there may often be word clusters (e.g. "life-lie") that sound odd in English. I quite like this translation by James McFarlane.

[Joe Marino · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a huge fan of Ibsen. I've always thought he was going to be dry, stuffy and non-navigable, but his characters are real people that have real lives.
I read THE WILD DUCK and found it really engaging, if not a little dated concerning the abject horror of finding out your wife may have had a past.
And, one might wonder if this was actually written by Checkov- for what he was "gunning " for.
Anyone?

[Eftychia · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5

[Toshiro Paliama · Rating 4 out of 5]

Drie mooie toneelstukken waarvan de laatste hartverscheurend tragisch is. Met een fraaie introductie die veel inzicht geeft in Ibsen’s thema’s en karakters.

[anna marie]

not such a fan ultimately of the first two, altho i thought the wild duck had potential but hated the ending.... but rosmersholm was so good, rebecca west is soooo fascinating !!

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting plays on human character. The endings were somewhat unexpected.

[Caleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

An Enemy of the People: 3 stars
The Wild Duck: 4 stars
Rosmersholm: 3 stars

[Reza]

نمایش نامه
روسمر سهلم ( اسبهای سفید ) : هنریک ایبسن
شخصیت های نمایش:
1- جان روسمر: مالک روسمر سهلم و کشیش منطقه
2- ربکا وست :ساکن منطقه که در نزد جان زندگی می کند.
3- دکتر کرول: برادر زن روسمر و مدیر مدرسه
4- اوتریک برندل: معلم سابق جان که اکنون دائم الخمر است.
5- پیتر مورتنسگارد: یک عضو ساسی که در حال فعالیت است. به نام آزادی
6- خانم هلست : مستخدم خانه جان روسمر
شرح نمایشنامه:
جان روسمر بعد از مرگ همسرش بئات که در نهر آسیاب غرق شده است به همراه دختری 30 ساله به نام ربکا زندگی می کند.البته به صورت دو دوست.
جان مدتهاست که اعتقادش را از دست داده است و می خواهد از کشیش بودن خود انصراف بدهد و به دنبال آزادی که همان گروه مورتنسگارد است برود منتهی فرصتی را پیدا نمی کند که به برادر زن سابقش دکتر کرول بگوید چون می داند او مخالفت می کند.پس با ربکا هماهنگ می شود و در یک فرصت مناسب به دکتر کرول بی اعتقاد شدن خود را می گوید.دکتر آشفته می شود و به دنبال راهی می گردد که جان را دوباره به مسلک خود برگرداند .اما موفق نمی شود. پس به این فکر می افتد که از طریق برملا کردن هویت اصلی ربکا جان را متقاعد کند.
ربکا بر خلاف تصور خودش که بر این باور بوده که فرزند دکتر وست است متوجه می شود او به فرزند خانگی دکتر وست در امده و او پدر حقیقی اش نیست.
دکتر کرول با این نیرنگ از ربکا می خواهد که جان را از کاری که می خواهد در پیش بگیرد منصرف کند ولی بر خلاف تصور دکتر کرول او به جان همه واقعیت را می گوید. و خود را در مرگ همسر جان مقصر می داند.جان می آشوبد و ربکا تصمیم به ترک آنجا می کند ولی به دلیل عشقی که جان به ربکا دارد سعی می کند او را از رفتن منصرف کند و مابقی داستان................................ .
درونمایه:
در این نمایشنامه افراد به صورت اجتماعی شان ارزیابی نمی شوند بلکه به صورت افکار درونی شان مورد چالش قرار می گیرند.
خیانت و سیاهی که در آن محیط خفه به چشم می خورد نشان روح ادراک شده فردی ست که پس از طی طریق در جهت خلاصی خود از زندگی و اجتماع می کند.در اینجا ربکا و برندل نقش اساسی دارند زیرا برندل در پرده آخر قبل ازینکه ربکا و جان خود را در نهر غرق کنند به آنها می گوید که دارد می رود به جایی که بتواند بدون ارمان زندگی کند که در اصطلاح معنای خود مرگ است.
ما در اینجا با احساس گناهی طرفیم که تا مرز نابودی دست از دامان پرسوناژها نمی کشد.و می تواند نشان از جامعه ای باشد که خود خواهی و بیاعتنایی به دیگران در پی آن ریشه دوانده است.
به نظر اینجانب این بهترین نمایش نامه است که من از هنریک ایبسن خوانده ام.

[John Jr. · Rating 3 out of 5]

In fall 2012, a new adaptation of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People ran on Broadway. I figured I wouldn't be able to afford seeing it, so I decided to obtain this Oxford Ibsen volume, part of a valuable series published in the 1960s, and re-read the play. It's quite a kick, because it's rather a bald polemic, prompted in part by the nasty reception given to Ghosts.

Dr. Thomas Stockmann, medical officer for some much-trafficked baths at a town in southern Norway, is at the start of the play paid well for basically certifying that the baths are healthy and beneficial, and many members of the community accept the largesse of his table. But a few odd cases of disease have led him to investigate the source of the waters that feed the baths. He finds that, far from making visitors well, the baths are likely to make them sick. At first, his discovery is welcomed by many, who see chances for gain in upsetting the established order. One by one, though, as the consequences of the truth begin to look costly to them, almost everyone turns against the doctor.

The characterization of Stockmann keeps this from being an entirely one-sided drama: he's impractical and prone to recklessness. At the end, he declares that he's made another discovery, that "the strongest man in the world is the man who stands alone." Ibsen's stage picture undercuts this by showing Stockmann's entire family, whose future he has put in peril, gathered around him, sighing words of dismay or admiration.

[Ariane Brosseau · Rating 3 out of 5]

*** Seulement Un ennemi du peuple ***
Quel intéressant revirement de situation: passer de sauveur du village à ennemi du peuple en l'espace de quelques jours! Et c'est pourtant ce qui arrive au Dr Thomas Stockmann pour avoir découvert que l'eau de l'établissement thermal de son village, centre de l'économie dirigé par son frère manipulateur et maire, était infesté de microbes.

Cette pièce offre une intéressante réflexion sur le pouvoir de l'opinion publique et de ceux qui l'orientent (journalistes, politiciens, etc.). Henrik Ibsen y travaille la polémique, le discrédit et le courage de ses opinions de façon brillante. La fin est déroutante, puisqu'on n'arrive plus à savoir qui est dans quel camp, tellement les personnages changent facilement d'allégeance. Et c'est cette fidèle représentation de l'espèce humaine qui fait toute la beauté de la pièce.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

آثار نمایشی هنریک ایبسن مانند زندگی اش پر از فراز و نشیب اند. برخی منتقدان او را به راستی ستوده اند و برخی هرگز آثارش را نپسندیدند. ایبسن به معنایی که دکتر امیر حسین آریانپور در کتاب "ایبسن آشوب گرای" نوشته، چه در زندگی و چه در آثارش یک آنارشیست جلوه می کند. با وجودی که گفته اند از شکسپیر به این سو دوران تراژدی بسر آمده، برخی از منتقدان بر این اعتقاداند که ایبسن تنها نمایش نامه نویسی ست که برخی از آثارش مانند اشباح و هداگابلر به تراژدی به معنای ارسطویی و شکسپیری آن نزدیک است.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I only read An Enemy of the People from this book, so I can only really review that. It was somewhat interesting - reading about how a revolution can start can be very intriguing - but towards the end it just started to slow down. It had all the makings to turn into some dramatic and heroic tale, but it just became a lot of politics. It had an anti-climactic end where everything just stops.... I read this for school and I probably won't read it again of my own accord.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can't in good conscience give the Norwegian master fewer than 4 stars but this is not one of his best, a whole lot of jawin', not so much drama. Perhaps he lost his perspective in his anger over the reception of Ghosts, but got his mojo back after this initial effort.

[Monique · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't usually like to read plays but I enjoyed reading these very much.

[Renee Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henrik Isben, Ghosts For the price a great buy. There are a few minor typos but considering the classic content and a very well done translation, these can easily be looked over.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can see my review of Arthur Miller's An Enemy of the People here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...