The doubtful paternity of Oswald

[Gladys]

In this thread I intend to post all textual evidence that bears upon the paternity of Oswald. Was his father Captain Alving or Pastor Manders?

Since Ibsen shows rather than tells, this evidence is certain to be implicit rather than explicit. All the evidence, of courses, will be subject to interpretations that do not relate to Oswald's paternity because Ibsen (like all good playwrights) intends multiple meanings. I expect the weight of evidence will bear heavily on the question of paternity.

It may prove that the identity of Oswald's father is unknowable both to the characters and those experiencing the play. If so, the ramifications are manifold.

[Gladys]

MANDERS. ... He [Oswald] is six or seven and twenty, and has never had the opportunity of learning what a well-ordered home really is.

Oswald is 26 or 27 years old.

MRS. ALVING. After nineteen years of marriage, as dissolute--in his desires at any rate--as he was before you married us.

Her marriage lasted 19 years.

MANDERS. I will first stir up your memory a little. The moment is well chosen. To-morrow will be the tenth anniversary of your husband's death.

Captain Alving married Helene 29 years ago.

Since Manders returned Helene Alving to her husband a little more than 28 years ago, Manders has only seen her in recent years on 'business in connection with the Orphanage'. If Pastor Manders was the father of Oswald, his child would be around 27.5 years old.

Therefore, it is chronologically admissible (if improbable) that Manders is Oswald's father.

[Gladys]

I hope to provide evidence that 28 years ago, on the night Mrs Alving fled from her home to Pastor Manders, one (and only one) brief episode of sexual intimacy likely took place, in the heat of the moment.

I think the following quotations show that the identity of Oswald's father is unknowable both to the characters and to us experiencing the play. While it is very likely that Captain Alving is the father, Ibsen tells us that it is not certain: good Pastor Manders is not all he seems.

Act I:

MANDERS. When Oswald appeared there, in the doorway, with the pipe in his mouth, I could have sworn I saw his father, large as life.

OSWALD. No, really?

MRS. ALVING. Oh, how can you say so? Oswald takes after me.

MANDERS. Yes, but there is an expression about the corners of the mouth --something about the lips --that reminds one exactly of Alving: at any rate, now that he is smoking.

MRS. ALVING. Not in the least. Oswald has rather a clerical curve about his mouth, I think.

MANDERS. Yes, yes; some of my colleagues have much the same expression.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OSWALD. Well, then, allow me to inform you. I have met with it when one or other of our pattern husbands and fathers has come to Paris to have a look round on his own account, and has done the artists the honour of visiting their humble haunts. They knew what was what. These gentlemen could tell us all about places and things we had never dreamt of.

MANDERS. What! Do you mean to say that respectable men from home
here would --?

OSWALD. Have you never heard these respectable men, when they got home again, talking about the way in which immorality runs rampant abroad?

MANDERS. Yes, no doubt --

MRS. ALVING. I have too.

OSWALD. Well, you may take their word for it. They know what they are talking about! [Presses has hands to his head.] Oh! that that great, free, glorious life out there should be defiled in such a way!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Act II:

MANDERS. Merciful heavens, would you let them marry! Anything so dreadful --! so unheard of --

MRS. ALVING. Do you really mean "unheard of"? Frankly, Pastor Manders, do you suppose that throughout the country there are not plenty of married couples as closely akin as they?

MANDERS. I don't in the least understand you.

MRS. ALVING. Oh yes, indeed you do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MRS. ALVING. Yes --when you forced me under the oke of what you
called duty and obligation; when you lauded as right and proper what
my whole soul rebelled against as something loathsome. It was then
that I began to look into the seams of your doctrines. I wanted only
to pick at a single knot; but when I had got that undone, the whole
thing ravelled out. And then I understood that it was all machine-sewn.

MANDERS. [Softly, with emotion.] And was that the upshot of my
life's hardest battle?

MRS. ALVING. Call it rather your most pitiful defeat.

MANDERS. It was my greatest victory, Helen --the victory over myself.

MRS. ALVING. It was a crime against us both.

MANDERS. When you went astray, and came to me crying, "Here I am;
take me!" I commanded you, saying, "Woman, go home to your lawful
husband." Was that a crime?

MRS. ALVING. Yes, I think so.

MANDERS. We two do not understand each other.

MRS. ALVING. Not now, at any rate.

MANDERS. Never --never in my most secret thoughts have I regarded you otherwise than as another's wife.

MRS. ALVING. Oh --indeed?

MANDERS. Helen --!

MRS. ALVING. People so easily forget their past selves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


MRS. ALVING. Regina matured very early.

MANDERS. Yes, I thought so. I have an impression that she was
remarkably well developed, physically, when I prepared her for
confirmation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

ENGSTRAND. Who could ever have thought she'd have gone and made bad worse by talking about it? Will your Reverence just fancy yourself in the same trouble as poor Johanna --

MANDERS. I!

ENGSTRAND. Lord bless you, I don't mean just exactly the same. But I mean, if your Reverence had anything to be ashamed of in the eyes of the world, as the saying goes. We menfolk oughtn't to judge a poor woman too hardly, your Reverence.

MANDERS. I am not doing so. It is you I am reproaching.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MRS. ALVING. [Laying her two hands upon his shoulders.] And I say that I have half a mind to put my arms round your neck, and kiss you.

MANDERS. [Stepping hastily back.] No, no! God bless me! What an idea!

MRS. ALVING. [With a smile.] Oh, you needn't be afraid of me.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MRS. ALVING. What did he say?

OSWALD. He said, "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children."

MRS. ALVING. [Rising slowly.] The sins of the fathers--!

OSWALD. I very nearly struck him in the face--

MRS. ALVING. [Walks away across the room.] The sins of the fathers--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Act III:

MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. [Busied in putting on her shawl.] Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. The Pastor is such a nice man to deal with; and I certainly think I've as much right to a little of that money as he has--that brute of a carpenter.

MRS. ALVING. You are heartily welcome to it, Regina.

REGINA. [Looks hard at her.] I think you might have brought me up as a gentleman's daughter, ma'am; it would have suited me better. [Tosses her head.] But pooh--what does it matter! [With a bitter side glance at the corked bottle.] I may come to drink champagne with gentlefolks yet.

MRS. ALVING. And if you ever need a home, Regina, come to me.

REGINA. No, thank you, ma'am. Pastor Manders will look after me, I know. And if the worst comes to the worst, I know of one house where I've every right to a place.

[Janine]

I have read most of this quickly, because I know the quotes and the words you pointed out well, I noted them while reading but don't believe they prove what you are suggesting; I still don't see this story, the way you see it. I do have one question for you now about this math:

MANDERS. I will first stir up your memory a little. The moment is well chosen. To-morrow will be the tenth anniversary of your husband's death.

Chamberlain Alving died 29 years ago.

How could Alving have died 29 yrs ago, when you just quoted that 'tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of his death?

Didn't you mean Mr. and Mrs. Alving was married 29 yrs ago? In that case, it could be entirely possible that Alving is the father. It is impossible that Alving died 29 yrs ago. His son knew him when he was sent away at age 7 besides. It is most likely that Mrs. Alving became pregnant not long after marrying Chamberlain Alving. She might even have been pregnant the night she fled to Manders, but this still does not prove a thing. She was abruptly shunned and rejected by Manders owing to his strict code of ethics and principals; they won out over his manhood desires. Neither then or now, could he condone or encourage sex outside of the confines of marriage. He represents that in the play; his character acts as the conventional symbolism that Ibsen sets forth to counter-balance the other characters, who are more free thinking and spirited. All this is not to say, that Manders was a saint or did not have feelings also for Helena, but he did not act on them; he clearly states:

MANDERS. [Softly, with emotion.] And was that the upshot of my
life's hardest battle?

MRS. ALVING. Call it rather your most pitiful defeat.

MANDERS. It was my greatest victory, Helen --the victory over myself.

MRS. ALVING. It was a crime against us both.

He may have even embraced her or gone as far as kissed her; but I would doubt it, he definitely did not get as far as sexual advances. If this was the case in this story, the entire meaning of this story would be changed; so in that one respect, I don't see the references in the text, which you are dissecting rather minutely, to signify that they had sexual relations or that Oswald was his son. If Oswald had been his son, he would have tried to have some contract with him, in some way. I have no doubts in my own mind that Oswald is the son of Alving and that all 5 main characters, asside from Manders and Regina's step-father, are connected in some way by blood.

[Gladys]

I must say I am enjoying our discussion, Janine, and am pleasantly surprised you found time and energy to reply.

Originally Posted by Janine

I noted them while reading but don't believe they prove what you are suggesting

Not proven but I'm sure Ibsen intended the ambiguity. Indeed, as I've indicated in more recent posts it is very unlikely, but not impossible, that Manders is the father. Please don't hold me, Janine, to the many speculations I expressed after reading only half the play, and have since retracted.

The paternity of Oswald, which I now believe is only a minor factor in the ending, emphasises the hypocrisy of Manders and the double standard of our sanctimonious society in respect to marriage between relatives. Incestuous marriages occur frequently, even today. Ibsen does shock.

Originally Posted by Janine

How could Alving have died 29 yrs ago

'Married', I meant. I've just corrected the 'Chronology' post.

Originally Posted by Janine

Neither then or now, could he condone or encourage sex outside of the confines of marriage.

I don't think Regine, in Act III, would share your opinion, and Mrs Alving drops the title 'Pastor' for the first time for this mate of Engstrand.

Originally Posted by Janine

All this is not to say, that Manders was a saint

Pastor Manders symbolises everything Ibsen detests about the so-called 'pillars of society'. In several of his plays, Ibsen creates a target for satire similar to Manders.

Originally Posted by Janine

MANDERS. It was my greatest victory, Helen --the victory over myself.

MRS. ALVING. It was a crime against us both.

He may have even embraced her or gone as far as kissed her; but I would doubt it, he definitely did not get as far as sexual advances. If this was the case in this story, the entire meaning of this story would be changed...

Changed, it is. Mrs Alving's "It was a crime" expresses with poignancy not only her view but also Ibsen's, as I believe the ending underlines. This play is much more shocking, Janine, than you yet realise. Mrs Alving is a fundamentally sincere and decent person; not so Manders.

Many of Ibsen's plays are profoundly shocking: the fairly mild 'A Doll's House' is in the minority. Have you watched Rosmersholm yet, or Brand?

[Janine]

Originally Posted by Gladys

I must say I am enjoying our discussion, Janine, and am pleasantly surprised you found time and energy to reply.

Gladys, It is more like the energy is not there; I had some heavy family responsibilities lately, and ongoing unfortunately; it is a wonder I can think clearly at all or muster up enough energy to post on here; but, as you said, I am enjoying the discussion, also. Not everyday you get a lively discussion going and continuing with someone with intelligence. It seems too many times discussions on this site seem to just abruptly end (which always irritates me emensely), so I am trying to keep hold here (not disappoint you or myself), so we can discuss this play, until we both are satisfied and then move onto another Ibsen challenge - not an easy task. Ibsen is so much more complex than I ever envisioned.

At any rate - often I jump in to write a few lines in response and then before I know it my post ends up long. I surprise myself sometimes. I may have been typing that last post half asleep.

Not proven but I'm sure Ibsen intended the ambiguity. Indeed, as I've indicated in more recent posts it is very unlikely, but not impossible, that Manders is the father. Please don't hold me, Janine, to the many speculations I expressed after reading only half the play, and have since retracted.

No problem at all; I would never hold someone to their first speculations; anyway, it is always healthy to explore all possibilities and look at all perspectives. No, I would only appreciate that and admire it in you. Also, admire that you can see it both ways. Always good to be 'open-minded.' We would rather be like Oswald than like Manders!

The paternity of Oswald, which I now believe is only a minor factor in the ending, emphasises the hypocrisy of Manders and the double standard of our sanctimonious society in respect to marriage between relatives. Incestuous marriages occur frequently, even today. Ibsen does shock.

Yes, agree; although I don't think tying Oswald to his father now is such a minor factor. It makes the fact that Mrs. Alving was attempting all those years to keep them separate and Oswald protected, and now that it shows that all her efforts have been quite futile - there lies the irony. I would imagine incestuous marriages occur today even more often than we realise. I have often wondered about adopted children; isn't it entirely possible they will someday marry their relative? It has been something that has bugged me for ages. Ibsen is just as shocking to audiences today, I have read. His work seems to be timeless.

'Married', I meant. I've just corrected the 'Chronology' post.

Oh, good, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think the math added up; thought I was seeing things that were not on the page. I was a bit sleepy when I wrote my last post; so I kept reading those lines or and over to make sure I was perceiving them right.

I don't think Regine, in Act III, would share your opinion, and Mrs Alving drops the title 'Pastor' for the first time for this mate of Engstrand.

Share which opinion? Do you mean living with Manders? I don't think Manders will allow it; he keeps pushing her onto Engstrand, pointing out it is her 'duty' to go and help him with his home for sailors. I think he's doing this to divert Regina from himself. She kept pointing out to Manders that she has changed, 'developed' (developed into a woman). Manders did not acknowledge this too readily; he is sort of playing dumb. Regina is like Mrs. Alving was once was to him - dangerous.

Pastor Manders symbolises everything Ibsen detests about the so-called 'pillars of society'. In several of his plays, Ibsen creates a target for satire similar to Manders.

I read that Ibsen wrote "Enemy of the People" right after this play, as an answer to the public - 'the pillars of society'. It was his attack on them and their brutal criticism of this play. Yes, satire is often a big element in his plays, irony as well. I found much irony in "The Master Builder". I have that on my mind since I just viewed it again a week ago. Now I have seen the play three times. I am sure I will watch it again; another mind boggler.

Changed, it is. Mrs Alving's "It was a crime" expresses with poignancy not only her view but also Ibsen's, as I believe the ending underlines. This play is much more shocking, Janine, than you yet realise. Mrs Alving is a fundamentally sincere and decent person; not so Manders.

Actually, I think I do know how shocking it is by now. I agree that Mrs. Alving is straighforward and 'sincere and decent' fundamentally. I liked her in the play and the reading but I never took to Manders. He rather annoyed me with his double standard hypocrical attitude and his bias. I found him to be a truly irritating character. His coldness left me cold.

Many of Ibsen's plays are profoundly shocking: the fairly mild 'A Doll's House' is in the minority. Have you watched Rosmersholm yet, or Brand?

I read the synoposis on "Brand" and hope to watch that one next; sounds fascinating. Maybe in the next few days or the weekend I can accomplish it; I let you know how I felt about it. I won't read it, until we get to discussing that particular play. These BBC plays seem to follow along with the text very closely. Usually, they are true to the original. I like to see the play performed more than merely reading it; I think one gets a lot more out of it; it is therefore, a very good tool, if it is stays true to the original, and the actors are fine intelligent actors who know the material; one can hardly fault the fine cast in 'Ghosts"...Judy Dench as Mrs. Alving, Kenneth Branagh as Oswald, Michael Gambon as Pastor Manders, Natashia Richardson as Regina. Movies, I agree, usually are cut to shreds and sometimes they only remotely represent their prodessor. I really hate that. I like full text renditions. I am glad I invested in this fine set of plays; I even have 8 audioplays in addition on the set. You can't beat that.

Just curious, is Regina, spelled Regine in your translation? In mine and the DVD plays she is Regina.

I noticed that my library has a copy of a volume of 3 of Ibsen's plays - one being "Ghosts"; I'll try and check the book out on Friday; it may have commentary in it, which may prove helpful.

[Gladys]

With family matters so pressing, Janine, have you read Act III yet? If not, I must apologize as my responses increasingly bear on the ending.

Originally Posted by Janine

The paternity of Oswald, which I now believe is only a minor factor in the ending

Of course I should have written, 'Doubt concerning the paternity of Oswald...' Doubts concerning the paternity of many of us would be vindicated by DNA testing! Importantly, Oswald was given no reason to doubt the Captain was his father. Strangely, and I think pragmatically, he seems scarcely to care.

Mrs. Alving. It is dreadful to think of!−−But surely a child should feel some affection for his father, whatever happens?

Oswald. When the child has nothing to thank his father for? When he has never known him? Do you really cling to that antiquated superstition−−you, who are so broad−minded in other things?

Originally Posted by Janine

Do you mean living with Manders? I don't think Manders will allow it; he keeps pushing her onto Engstrand, pointing out it is her 'duty' to go and help him with his home for sailors. I think he's doing this to divert Regina from himself. She kept pointing out to Manders that she has changed, 'developed' (developed into a woman). Manders did not acknowledge this too readily; he is sort of playing dumb. Regina is like Mrs. Alving was once was to him - dangerous.

I see differently. While Pastor Manders can ill afford a public liaison with a respected married woman, a very private affair with a single and unimportant 'woman of pleasure' is viable - and, indeed, unremarkable for these 'pillars of society' (with their Parisian trips). Regine (Regina in English), duped by her mother and the Alving's, sinks as low as her half-brother. Ibsen attacks sexual double standards.

Originally Posted by Janine

I found much irony in "The Master Builder".

'The Master Builder' is much easier but the ending is even more astonishing.

Originally Posted by Janine

I read the synopsis on "Brand" and hope to watch that one next

'Brand' has been subjected to a enormous range of interpretation, and I'm squarely and confidently at one extreme. The ending of Brand is monumental.

The cast for your Ghosts' DVD is most impressive. Has the play been cut for performance?

[Janine]

Originally Posted by Gladys

With family matters so pressing, Janine, have you read Act III yet? If not, I must apologize as my responses increasingly bear on the ending.

Sorry, Gladys, I had missed this thread; I probably failed to save it to my 'Quick Links' listings. I did indeed finish reading the play, about 4 or 5 days ago. I loved it, of course. No damage done in addressing the ending. I had seen the play twice on my DVD set and so I knew it all pretty well. In answer to your last question in this post, I don't see any differences much in the text. I think I noticed just a few minor alterations and am not quite sure that casts any alteration in the meaning of the play or interpretation. I will check that out again. It could also be the difference in translations. Definitely, the play, I saw by the BBC, was excellent and worth viewing. I don't see that it is was cut at all. Yes, it was a fine cast and really the reason I purchased the set, since I am a big Kenneth Branagh fan and of course, I adore Judy Dench's fine acting; the other two were further bonus' to purchasing it. I don't think I could buy it separately from the set. The DVD set is worth owning anyway; I highly recommend it to anyone.

Of course I should have written, 'Doubt concerning the paternity of Oswald...' Doubts concerning the paternity of many of us would be vindicated by DNA testing! Importantly, Oswald was given no reason to doubt the Captain was his father. Strangely, and I think pragmatically, he seems scarcely to care.

Yes, perhaps; but your title is fine, even though my own interpretations still don't bend that direction. Yes, I had the self same thought - no DNA back then; therefore no certainty. I just don't personally think that Helen slept with Manders. I agree that Oswald has not really known his father and therefore he does not truly care. I picked up on that, as I was reading and before you quoted the lines (here) indicating it:

Mrs. Alving. It is dreadful to think of!−−But surely a child should feel some affection for his father, whatever happens?

Oswald. When the child has nothing to thank his father for? When he has never known him? Do you really cling to that antiquated superstition−−you, who are so broad−minded in other things?

The reply by Oswald is especially telling.

I see differently. While Pastor Manders can ill afford a public liaison with a respected married woman, a very private affair with a single and unimportant 'woman of pleasure' is viable - and, indeed, unremarkable for these 'pillars of society' (with their Parisian trips). Regine (Regina in English), duped by her mother and the Alving's, sinks as low as her half-brother. Ibsen attacks sexual double standards.

Well, if you want to see it that way you are entitled. I don't think I really interpret the ending the same way you do, but that is fine. 'To each his own', so the saying goes. I do think that Ibsen explores the double standard extensively. He shows this difference in relation to woman and man implicitly; look at "The Doll's House"; it is a perfect example.

'The Master Builder' is much easier but the ending is even more astonishing.

I am not convinced it is easy but it is maybe a little clearer to me now after viewing it 3 times; two being the same production and the third an older production from the 50's. I believe both followed the text closely. I will be reading it when we discuss it. Indeed that ending was astonishing to me on my first viewing.

'Brand' has been subjected to a enormous range of interpretation, and I'm squarely and confidently at one extreme. The ending of Brand is monumental.

I can't wait to watch that one. I should be watching right now - the play "Richard II" is being discussed and I have the BBC version of that too with Derek Jacobi playing Richard; another fine production.

The cast for your Ghosts' DVD is most impressive. Has the play been cut for performance?

As I said before - no not cut as far as the text is concerned. I think I saw a slight difference in the ending - Oswald is not sitting in a chair with back to the window; he is rather close to his mother on a sofa and then his head is down in her lap when he says "give me the sun". It may be that the director wanted mother and son to be closer for that final scene to create more drama and emotional impact. I don't have any qualms with the production changes - they seemed minor; although, I must say the house seems to be portrayed a little more Gothic-like, in the fact it is dark and rather bare in staging. I don't see light at all until the ending. I do recall another change. I don't think that Oswald is wearing a light outfit anytime during the play. I will have to check out that detail again. I rather like to observe any production differences.

[Gladys]

Originally Posted by Janine

Well, if you want to see it that way you are entitled.

To see Manders and Regine differently, you need alternative explanations for the overtly provocative words, bolded in the following passages. Can you explain away this mountain of evidence suggesting that Manders - like the Captain a 'pillar of society' - is a fornicator and, in at least one instance, an adulterer?

MRS. ALVING. Not in the least. Oswald has rather a clerical curve about his mouth, I think.

MANDERS. Yes, yes; some of my colleagues have much the same expression.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MANDERS. [Softly, with emotion.] And was that the upshot of my life's hardest battle?

MRS. ALVING. Call it rather your most pitiful defeat.

MANDERS. It was my greatest victory, Helen --the victory over myself.

MRS. ALVING. It was a crime against us both.

MANDERS. When you went astray, and came to me crying, "Here I am; take me!" I commanded you, saying, "Woman, go home to your lawful husband." Was that a crime?

MRS. ALVING. Yes, I think so.

MANDERS. We two do not understand each other.

MRS. ALVING. Not now, at any rate.

MANDERS. Never --never in my most secret thoughts have I regarded you otherwise than as another's wife.

MRS. ALVING. Oh --indeed?

MANDERS. Helen --!

MRS. ALVING. People so easily forget their past selves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. [Busied in putting on her shawl.] Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. The Pastor is such a nice man to deal with; and I certainly think I've as much right to a little of that money as he has--that brute of a carpenter.

MRS. ALVING. You are heartily welcome to it, Regina.

REGINA. [Looks hard at her.] I think you might have brought me up as a gentleman's daughter, ma'am; it would have suited me better. [Tosses her head.] But pooh--what does it matter! [With a bitter side glance at the corked bottle.] I may come to drink champagne with gentlefolks yet.

MRS. ALVING. And if you ever need a home, Regina, come to me.

REGINA. No, thank you, ma'am. Pastor Manders will look after me, I know. And if the worst comes to the worst, I know of one house where I've every right to a place [as the Captain's daughter by birth and by morals].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That Pastor Manders is little better than Chamberlain Alving in terms of debauchery is clear. Regine obviously has inside information against Manders not available to us - very probably from Engstrand. To believe Manders did not have sex that night with Helene, undermines her integrity, which I now believe is iron clad.

That all except Mrs Alving are degenerate, now seems crucial to the play's ending, to her 'speechless horror'.