Oh, so difficult to grasp!

[Gladys]

Having read ten Ibsen plays in several weeks, 'Ghosts' has baffled me, even after a rereading. Still it’s wonderfully challenging. As the play ends, Oswald begs his mother for a morphine overdose to end 'the great, killing dread' - to do her duty. What are we to make of this, and dread of what?

At age seven, Oswald was sent away from home by his mother. ‘Home’ and 'child' are central elements in several Ibsen plays.

He looks on his mother with recrimination either for sending him away or for crushing his father's 'joy of life'. As Pastor Manders says, she sent her 'child forth among strangers', and he asks, ‘And in what state of mind has he returned to you? ’. She seems a woman who values duty beyond moral courage.

Oswald remembers his father with remorse and admiration, but concedes, '"father"! I never knew anything of father'.

Sparkling Regine, his half sister fascinates him. A distant memory of Johanna and his spirited father perhaps? Regine inherited her father's 'joy of life': Oswald, his mother's dour negativity.
If Oswald is mentally ill, is his mother responsible for a disorder ‘inherited’ from her? If his mental disorder is intractable, how could Regine have helped him, and why would calamity still hover, with her ultimately coming 'to the rescue at the last' with euthanasia by morphine'? Why exactly does Regine forsake him?

What are we to make of the other homes in the play, the two memorials: the incinerated orphanage and finally Jacob Engstrand's "Chamberlain Alving's Home" for sailors? And what is Ibsen's overall thesis?

[Janine]

Gladys, we must discuss this play after we discuss "The Master Builder". As you said it "baffles" you and also it is "wonderfully challenging". I didn't read the actual play, but watched the film version and found it to be a play I can't seem to stop thinking about. I have some comments for you commentary above, but will refrain at this time from addressing the all the issues and questions you present. Maybe, between the two of us, we can reveal more about the play's meanings; figure it all out. I know that one commentary I read, said it deals with the issues of incest, veneral disease, mental illness, euthinashia. I didn't take it that Oswald inherited the illness from his mother, but rather from the father's side. It is more complicated than all of that, I believe, and I will have to re-watch the film to be sure of how I first perceived it. It was very well done and true, I am sure, to the original play, having been produced by the BBC. You have brought up some very good points and analogies above to be discussed at a later date.

[Gladys]

I know that one commentary I read, said it deals with the issues of incest, veneral disease, mental illness, euthinashia. For the most part, Janine, I hobble along without commentaries and hope for revelation. I don't recall 'venereal disease'. Is it obvious?

[Janine]

For the most part, Janine, I hobble along without commentaries and hope for revelation. I don't recall 'venereal disease'. Is it obvious?

Not that obvious, but I do believe it is an element in the play. This is a subtle play. I know that when Isben wrote this play, it nearly killed his career, since he presented such contraversial subjects/themes. I will have to do more study on the play and also view it again. One thing is certain, I can't really stop thinking about the play, since I viewed it last month. It puzzles me and I find that makes me want to delve into it deeper and see the hidden meanings; it totally captivated my imagination and interest.

Here is my raw theory on the ending. I think that Oswald has contracted veneral disease (syphilis, to be exact), he knows he is going to go mad and will die; this is apparently what happened to his father in the end. His father ran around on the mother, and most likely his mother was cold to him, so he may have had good reason to do so. No one is a total villan in this play or any of the Ibsen plays; all are starkly realistic characters, fully fleshed out. They are all humanly complex. I think that back then, people felt they inherited this from their parents or one parent. Perhaps Oswald thinks like this - he did wrong, was somewhat promiscuous, following in his father's footsteps and now he is going to pay the ultimate price - the cost is the disease and his impending madness and death. It is a sad and tragic, because we all know in this day and age that VD is not inherited from parents; but, still Oswald sees this as the result of his having the same poor judgement as his father did and now he is doomed.

Does any of this make sense? I am basically thinking out loud, but I do need to re-watch the play.



At age seven, Oswald was sent away from home by his mother. ‘Home’ and 'child' are central elements in several Ibsen plays.

He looks on his mother with recrimination either for sending him away or for crushing his father's 'joy of life'. As Pastor Manders says, she sent her 'child forth among strangers', and he asks, ‘And in what state of mind has he returned to you? ’. She seems a woman who values duty beyond moral courage.

Oswald remembers his father with remorse and admiration, but concedes, '"father"! I never knew anything of father'.

Sparkling Regine, his half sister fascinates him. A distant memory of Johanna and his spirited father perhaps? Regine inherited her father's 'joy of life': Oswald, his mother's dour negativity.

These are all good observations as well and I agree with all of them basically.

[Gladys]

Toward the end of Act II, Oswald says,


And this ceaseless rain! It may go on week after week, for months together. Never to get a glimpse of the sun! I can't recollect ever having seen the sun shine all the times I've been at home.

Would that I understood its significance in the ending.

[Janine]

Toward the end of Act II, Oswald says,


And this ceaseless rain! It may go on week after week, for months together. Never to get a glimpse of the sun! I can't recollect ever having seen the sun shine all the times I've been at home.

Would that I understood its significance in the ending.

I think the house was always dismal for Oswald and now he knows he is restricted to staying home to die. The play I saw depicted the house very dark and Gothic-like. It is a very sad scenerio and fate for Oswald who is innocent and a product of his environment and family circumstances. When he speaks of the lack of light this may also relate to the symptoms of his late stage syphilis - impending blindness. Now I just looked up something online and found this:


Ghosts | Introduction
Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts surprises modern audiences with some of the issues that it discusses, including out-of-wedlock children, venereal disease, incest, infidelity, and euthanasia. It is the story of a woman, Mrs. Alving, who is preparing for the opening of an orphanage in memory of her husband, Captain Alving, on the tenth anniversary of his death. The captain was an important and respected man in his community, and Mrs. Alving plans to raise this one great memorial to him so that she will not have to ever again speak of him.

She wants to avoid the awful truth: that he was a cheating, immoral philanderer whose public reputation was a sham. Their son Oswald has come home from Paris with the news that he is dying of syphilis, which he contracted in the womb, and planning to marry the family’s maid. He hopes that she can nurse him as his illness progresses, and Mrs. Alving has to tell him that the maid is actually Captain Alving’s illegitimate daughter.

The ‘‘ghosts’’ in this play are the taboo topics that cannot be openly discussed. This drama is one of Ibsen’s most powerful works, but also one of his most controversial. Its initial publication sold only a few copies, with most of those printed returned to the publisher and no new edition printed until thirteen years later. It was not performed in Ibsen’s native Norway for almost a decade after its world debut in Chicago. In 1898, at a dinner in Ibsen’s honor at the Royal Palace in Stockholm, King Oscar II expressed the opinion that Ghosts was not a good play, and that Ibsen should not have written it. After a moment of silence, the playwright replied, ‘‘Your majesty, I had to write Ghosts.’’

www.enotes.com/ghosts

Wow, is it really possible to contract syphilis from the womb? I never knew that it was possible, but that makes sense to me now, unless this commentary is wrong. I will look up others, too. But wouldn't the mother have it too? I think one can be a carrier and not have the actual disease - time to research it on Wikipedia I guess.
I like the reply that Ibsen gave to King Oscar II - "....I had to write Ghosts"...good for Ibsen!


Here's some added information on the disease I found these on Wikipedia and another medical site:


Congenital syphilis occurs when a mother's syphilis goes untreated during pregnancy and is passed to the baby through the placenta. A baby can also become infected with syphilis during labor or delivery.

The risk of infecting the baby is greatest when the mother is in the early stages of syphilis; however, infection is possible any time during pregnancy.1

It is very important that a pregnant woman have a lab test to detect syphilis. The baby's risk of getting syphilis is significantly reduced if the mother receives treatment during pregnancy. If the mother is treated before the 16th week of her pregnancy, the baby will usually not become infected. Treating a pregnant woman in the secondary stage of syphilis before her last month of pregnancy reduces the chances the baby will be born with congenital syphilis by 98%. 2

If an infected mother does not receive treatment, the mother may miscarry, or the baby may be born dead, die shortly after birth, be born early, or be infected with syphilis.1

Complications that can occur in a baby whose infected mother was not treated include:

A flat bridge of the nose (saddle nose).
Permanent incisor teeth that are peg-shaped, widely spaced, and notched at the end with a crescent-shaped deformity in the center (notched teeth or Hutchinson's teeth).
Inflammation of the cornea, which may cause blindness (interstitial keratitis).
A progressive, disabling, and life-threatening complication involving the brain (neurosyphilis).
Deafness.
Bone deformities.
Antibiotics can prevent progression of the disease in an infected baby. However, problems that have already developed may not be reversible.

If a baby with syphilis is not treated, the disease can progress to a late congenital stage, if the baby lives past the first 6 to 12 months.

***************************

Late syphilis; Tertiary syphilis
Definition Return to top

Tertiary syphilis is a late phase of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis, caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum.

Causes

Tertiary syphilis can follow the initial infection, primary syphilis, by 3 to 15 years. Secondary syphilis is the stage that precedes tertiary syphilis if primary syphilis is not treated.

In tertiary syphilis, the spirochetes have continued to reproduce for years. Pockets of damage accumulate in various tissues such as the bones, skin, nervous tissue, heart, and arteries. These lesions are called gummas and are very destructive.

Lesions in the central nervous system produce neurological disease called neurosyphilis which can include tabes dorsalis, general paresis, and optic atrophy. Lesions of the heart, heart valves and aorta can lead to aneurysms, valvular heart disease, and aortitis.

Tertiary syphilis is less frequently seen today than in the past because of early detection and adequate treatment.

Symptoms of tertiary syphilis depend on which organ systems have been affected. They vary widely and are difficult to diagnose. In individuals with tertiary syphilis the primary and secondary stages of syphilis usually have been long forgotten. Medical findings of aortic aneurysms and neurological problems require astute diagnostic ability to link them to syphilis. Some of the symptomatic problems are listed below.

Infiltrative tumors of skin, bones, or liver (gumma)
Cardiovascular syphilis which affects the aorta and causes aneurysms or valve disease
Central nervous system disorders (neurosyphilis)

So does this mean that the father gave the mother the disease and then she was later cured of it? I am bit confused about that part. Maybe she was not aware that she had it while pregnant and then later was disagnosed with the disease and sought treatment. I think that would make sense to the plot of this play. She could very well have been ignorant as a young wife and pregnant with her son and then became aware of symptoms and that she contracted it from her husband who was a philanderer.

[Gladys]

Wow, is it really possible to contract syphilis from the womb? I wonder where in the play this is?

Even if syphilis, the ending is scarcely clearer:


[She stands a few steps away from him with her hands twisted in her hair, and stares at him in speechless horror.]

OSWALD. [Sits motionless as before and says.] The sun.--The sun.

I look forward to your insights, Janine, once you've read the play.

[Janine]

I wonder where in the play this is?

Even if syphilis, the ending is scarcely clearer:


[She stands a few steps away from him with her hands twisted in her hair, and stares at him in speechless horror.]

OSWALD. [Sits motionless as before and says.] The sun.--The sun.

I look forward to your insights, Janine, once you've read the play.

Actually, I found my book last night - was the last place I searched (figures) - and I was so curious now about this aspect of the play, that I decided to read this play first. I assure you, Gladys, I will read "The Master Builder" promptly after this is done, so we can get discussing it fully. Sorry I strayed a tiny bit already. Plays go faster than novels. I am really in a play mood right now. I just read a Chekhov play and enjoyed it emensely; I want to resume watching these Ibsen plays and will watch "The Master Builder" again by the weekend, hopefully.

[Gladys]

...I decided to read this play first. I assure you, Gladys, I will read "The Master Builder" promptly after this is done, so we can get discussing it fully. With pleasure, Janine, I'll seek both plays at the library today.

[Janine]

With pleasure, Janine, I'll seek both plays at the library today.

Oh, good; I will wait till you read them, to comment further. Maybe we can even simulanteously discuss both, who knows? They are so different we should have no trouble keeping them separate, also since they have separate threads and since I am not doing two short story threads this month, as usual, it might not be too much at one time. We can try it and see.

I watched "Ghosts" again tonight on my computer pretty close up. It was amazing. I got a lot more from it this time around. I paid attention to every line of dialogue, so I think I know where the syphilis is intimated or suggested. I don't think back when this was written Ibsen could blantantly come out with the word on a stage so he implied it very cleverly within the subtext of this play. There is a lot of subtext throughout. One has to pay keen attention to pick up on it. Oswald mentions firstly, that a doctor told him he was was being 'worm eaten from the inside out'. I think the veneral disease was considered a type of worm; I was reading about it on Wikipedia and under a microscope it looks like a worm. Also, Oswald first says it was inherited from his father, even before he was born. The only thing I don't quite understand entirely, is why the mother did not contract the disease or did she? Anyway, closer examination of the exact text, which I am reading, should reveal more. It seems first Oswald believes it is not his fault, but comes from his father, then he sees a different doctor and he begins to blame the disease on his own excesses while living in Paris. This is sketchy, because before that, he professed at having stayed pure. I hardly think a young man living in Paris would have stayed entirely pure or virginal during that time, but who knows. Then after his mother's confession, he again takes up the notion that the disease he suffers from, was indeed inherited from his father and not a result of his own actions; now he is off the hook again and now free from guilt. He realises he has had this since birth, actually in the womb. I will continue to read the actual play and see if I stick with this assessment.

[Gladys]

Maybe we can even simultaneously discuss both. As you wish, Janine.


I watched "Ghosts" again tonight on my computer pretty close up. Having just read Act I, I doubt I can comment on material you have referenced from later in the play, although I read it twice last August. I offer a few thoughts on Act I.



Engstrand has rat cunning and a step-daughter. What does his lameness signify?


Pastor Manders seems the epitome of propriety, while narrow-minded and lacking a little in compassion. Is he otherwise blameless? There must be more to him.


Regine, Oswald's half sister, is your independent modern woman. With a good heart.


Captain/Chamberlain Alving - is he all bad? No, because his wife had been frigid from the wedding. Still, his behaviour had been Bacchanalian.


Mrs Alving is problematic. Her marriage, understandably, begins very badly. Years later, she sends her 7-year-old away from home to preserve his innocence - hmmm. She builds an orphanage in memory of her reprobate husband so that he son will inherit nothing from him. Has she become more broad-minded with the years?


Does the orphanage insurance have significance? Does it matter if the orphanage burns to the ground? I would have thought not.


And Oswald: the prodigal son returned to never-ending rain at the edge of the western fiords. Ejected from the family home, from the nest, he has grown even more broad-minded than his mother. There's only a suggestion of illness.


At the end of Act I, Mrs Alving wrongly perceives history be repeating itself:


MRS. ALVING. [Hoarsely.] Ghosts! The couple from the conservatory-- risen again!

That's the evidence: can we draw conclusions?

[Janine]

As you wish, Janine.

Having just read Act I, I doubt I can comment on material you have referenced from later in the play, although I read it twice last August. I offer a few thoughts on Act I.

No problem, Gladys, I sort of jumped ahead before we could establish the full scope of the play. I usually like taking plays by acts and should not have done so but I was trying to address your original questions about the syphilis - if there was clearcut evidence of it. This is the exact part I was trying to address of you questions:


I wonder where in the play this is?

Even if syphilis, the ending is scarcely clearer:

[She stands a few steps away from him with her hands twisted in her hair, and stares at him in speechless horror.]

OSWALD. [Sits motionless as before and says.] The sun.--The sun.

Considering I have read about the veneral disease mentioned on several sites and in several articles, I believe that Ibsen himself must have explained that this play involved the dreaded disease, at some time in his career. Also, I think syphilis was fairly prevalent at that time, if one did have a promiscuious lifestyle. With syphilis, the symptoms can go undetected for years and then surface and cause insanity during the final stage; obviously, Oswald's illness is in the final stage. Remember by now, actually by refraining from saying the word on stage it reflects the whole idea of the title "Ghosts". Back then, these topics were indeed 'ghosts' and people didn't dare talk directly about them, not even in the privacy of their homes, to each other. If you notice the fact that Regina is actually Captain's Alvine's 'illegtimate' daughter, that is never stated outright either. The fear that Oswald has in the last scene with his mother, is not of death itself, although he wants to live as any youth would, seeing his whole life and talents/career set before him; but, being left helpless like a 'babbling baby, unable to take care of himself' is unthinkable to Oswald; he can't bear the idea; he can't even think on it, for more than a few minutes. One can certainly understand his great fear. Who would wish to be left in that awful state of agony? He asks the mother who send him away for one final demonstration that she does truly love him. He begs her to show her love by assisting in his suicide. That is a very hard thing to ask a mother to do. Now the woman who once sacrificed seeing her son and living daily with him, must sacrifice him again; this time to irreversable eternal darkness, death. I think when he asks her for the 'sun' it is somewhat ironic, but also appropriate - for Oswald death may be his 'sun'; if he stays living he would live in eternal darkness, with impending blindness and the awful condition of the disease taking over all of his senses, before rendering him up to death. This is horrific to think of.

Now, onto your other questions and comments. I will number them.




1.Engstrand has rat cunning and a step-daughter. What does his lameness signify?

2.Pastor Manders seems the epitome of propriety, while narrow-minded and lacking a little in compassion. Is he otherwise blameless? There must be more to him.

3.Regine, Oswald's half sister, is your independent modern woman. With a good heart.

4.Captain/Chamberlain Alving - is he all bad? No, because his wife had been frigid from the wedding. Still, his behaviour had been Bacchanalian.

5.Mrs Alving is problematic. Her marriage, understandably, begins very badly. Years later, she sends her 7-year-old away from home to preserve his innocence - hmmm. She builds an orphanage in memory of her reprobate husband so that he son will inherit nothing from him. Has she become more broad-minded with the years?

6.Does the orphanage insurance have significance? Does it matter if the orphanage burns to the ground? I would have thought not.

7.And Oswald: the prodigal son returned to never-ending rain at the edge of the western fiords. Ejected from the family home, from the nest, he has grown even more broad-minded than his mother. There's only a suggestion of illness.


8.At the end of Act I, Mrs Alving wrongly perceives history be repeating itself:


MRS. ALVING. [Hoarsely.] Ghosts! The couple from the conservatory-- risen again!
That's the evidence: can we draw conclusions?

1. Yes, true that "Engstrand has rat cunning"; at one point, he even appears to blackmail Manders for money, for his new scheme of a home for sailors (this indicating a brothel to me)...he is very sly, sly like a fox; he can talk a good line and make it seem he is upstanding and honorable, but one knows the he is not. His intentions are always low and below decency.

"What does his lameness signify?" I think it signifies that he is stuck in a rut and can't get past his own alcholism and bad habits, indecency. He is not about to change in anyway; he makes out, that he was saved Regina's mother by marrying her and in actuality, he was probably the worst husband on earth; he married her for the money paid by Mrs. Alving. He likes to think of himself as a saint, or portray his actions as saintly to others. We quickly know what a scoundrel he is. Regina knows it all along; she has seen his authentic side first hand, when her poor mother was alive. I even got this impression that he treated Regina far from respectably, but I could be wrong. There may have been some wife and child abuse in that family. He certainly was mentally abusive to both. That is evident.

2. Yes, I definitely agree that "Pastor Manders seems the epitome of propriety"; and to me he is very narrow-minded, not just a little; definitely he is lacking in compassion; he was not that nice, seeing Oswald after all those years and he is cold towards Mrs Alving when he first enters the room; and he is highly critical of her reading; notice he has not actually read those books and yet he feels he has the authority to condemn such broad thinking.

"Is he otherwise blameless? There must be more to him." I don't know if he is blameless or should be blamed for anything here, but he may be blamed for seeking his own advancement or feeding his own selfish pride. He is very limited in his scope; he can't think outside the box. He is definitely set in his strict religious ways and he can't bend or see the other side of things; other's views. He is a bigot in my opinion and not too likable. He seems to have harden to the world; perhaps at one time he was more pliable and appealing but now he is quite jade and rigid. He may wish to be different and be hiding behind his clerical facade; but he can't break out of it and become a real man. He is rather 'sexless' actually, and I think that Mrs Alving was attracted to him at one time and probably he was attracted very much to her, but when she made the first move, he was frozen and could not percieve any other way for her, but to return to her philandering husband. From then on, I see that her fate was sealed and she had to learn to close off her own feelings, in order to protect herself. She became numb to any passions she may have felt. It may be that she married Mr. Alving because, as she put it, he bought her with that sum of money that now was invested in the orphanage. It may have been a case of an arranged marriage of sorts, in which by financial circumstances, she felt she had to please her family and make a good match with Captain Alving. Perhaps, she never did love the man or feel attracted towards him. We don't know much about their early lives in the short span of time of this play. I do think that once rejected, from any comfort or even love from Manders, she saw her only alternative was to send her young son away, as to protect him from the strife within the house. I can well understand this, and I feel for Mrs. Alving at that time. Surely, it was a great sacrifice she had to make. Of course, now Oswald has mixed feelings about that decision and about his father and his mother. The thing is removing him from the house and distancing him, he never got a true picture of either parent; when this happens, often children will create their own sort of 'fantasy' view of the parents, most time which is inaccurate. I think the mention of the pipe and his father's irresponsible actions, of letting a small child puff on it, even encouraging it, and finding humor in that child becoming ill, was truly sick and now Oswald sees this past scene is his life with adult eyes. Probably at the time, he did not understand how abusive that action was. Not only was Regina abused by a stepfather, but so was Oswald, by his biological father. The two share more than a biological connection; they can understand one another, because of the abuses they had to endure as children. The pipe was only one example, of how Alving may have abused Oswald; we can only imagine what else may have gone on in that house, prior to his being send away. Perhaps things were even worse and Mrs. Alving feared for Oswald. I see her as a woman trapped in a bad marriage, with no out. She is something like Nora in "A Doll's House'. It is understandable, that Ibsen explores these themes over and over again, in his plays. He often concentrates on the fate of the woman who is trapped. I see Mrs. Alving as a trapped woman. She is not only trapped in a marriage, but in a whole society, that can't accept other modes of living, such as the lifestyles mentioned by Oswald to Manders. Manders is appalled by the mere thought of non-traditional marriages and living together happily with children. Manders requires the written official paper of marriage; otherwise, he most certainly condemns the individuals who choose to live this way. He could disagree with these ideas but not condemn them. His narrowmindedness requires him to do both.

"3.Regine, Oswald's half sister, is your independent modern woman. With a good heart."

I agree with this whole-heartedly; I also I think she longs to better herself, until the very ending, when she is totally disillusioned with everything, learning the truth about her mother and about Oswald being her half brother. Her story then becomes one of deep tragedy, in which she, as a woman, will be trapped in a bad situation.

"4.Captain/Chamberlain Alving[/I] - is he all bad?"
No, I don't see one character in this play as all bad. I think they all have their deep issues, but not true wickedness; they are only humans with faults and weaknesses. They are all very complex characters. We hardly know anything accurate about Captain/Chamberlain Alving. We only know, what we know, from the perception of the other characters, and that can be somewhat distorted. We are forming his portrait from second-hand sources and our own impressions. We have to keep that inmind before condemning him.


No, because his wife had been frigid from the wedding. Still, his behaviour had been Bacchanalian.
How can we assume she was frigid from the wedding? I thought at one time, she stated that her husband was full of life, even appealing or charming. I will have to review that part. It is true, that as a young bride, she did become quickly disillusioned with him, but was that her total fault or caused by her own frigid attitude? Perhaps after a time his behavior truly repulsed her. I don't think we know enough about that time, to judge Mrs. Alvin's behavior. I don't see her as a woman of whim, who just goes running off after some other man. She went to Manders out of desperation and longing for love, companionship, understanding, solace. Perhaps she was shunned by the husband; then left a very lonely young woman. There could be many scenerios here. He may have cheated and been quite "Bacchanalian" from the start. Many men are and they can't break out of that habit; some wives simply turn their heads; Mrs. Alving could not perhaps. That is just one scenerio.

"5. Mrs Alving is problematic. Her marriage, understandably, begins very badly."
Yes, I think her marriage is not right from the very start. Perhaps she is very young; I don't think it stated her age when married; maybe she was naive, as well; although, she seems a smart woman at this stage in her life and better informed, but people do change over time. Surely she matured since her wedding.

Did it say how many years it was that they had been married when she send her 7-year-old son away? I don't know, if it was to preserve his innocence; I felt it was more out of concern for his welfare and his safetly. She tried to shelter him from mental abuse and being affected by it himself. The irony is, he could not escape the sins of the father in the end. They are revisited on him anyway, physically manifested and for Mrs. Alving this must have been terrible indeed. She thought she had sacrified her togetherness, with her only son, for his betterment and protection; in the end, she must feel her efforts were useless and failed her.

"She builds an orphanage in memory of her reprobate husband so that he son will inherit nothing from him."
She also states it is the exact sum of money the father bought her with. She sees it, as she was 'bought', like a common prostitude and she does not want her son tainted with this money.

I think that Mrs. Alving has become more broad-minded with the years. I think the evidence of that was the books that Manders reprimands her about, and she professes these taught her of the world and are acceptable, in her own opinion. She also shows no shred of shock, when Oswald tells Manders of the couples with children, he has visited, who are not legally married.

"6.Does the orphanage insurance have significance? Does it matter if the orphanage burns to the ground? I would have thought not."
In some way, the burning of the orphanage is appropriate, because I don't believe it was being built out of true benevolence for the orphans. It is odd though, that Mrs. Alvin, in a sense, sent her son away at 7 and he probably lived like an orphan, without the benifit of father and mother love and models in his life. I think he takes the burning the hardest, which might now be understandable. Mrs. Alvin hardly seems too upset over it, but rather accepting of the building burning to the ground. It is like, all it represented to her was a building and the comsumption of the money she says she was 'bought' with. I wasn't sure I fully understood the interchange between Manders and Engstrand about the actual act of the fire beginning. I felt that Engstrand is placing the blame on Manders, for snuffing out a match or a candle, and then flinging it on the floor. I almost thought that Manders did indeed, talk Mrs. Alving out of the insurance and then set the fire himself purposely; because right after the fire, he says something about using the property for the church. Wasn't he, all along, looking out for his own pride and self-intersests? I think the fire represents a lot of things. I think it is the degregation of the life that Mrs. Alving has been forced to live, burned down now into mere ash. I think it is the impending death of Oswald, and all her good intentions now come to a pile of ash, destroyed in an instant. I think the ash being 'gray' would also represent the ghosts in the house, the 'unspeaken' and 'invisible' issues of this household - all the 'skeletons in the closet', so to speak. I see the theme at the end of ash, death, darkness, and then when the flames and ash die down, there is a sort of hope of eternal 'rebirth', in the appearance of morning and sun. The son asks his mother for one last request on his death-bed, "give me the sun". The contrast is really brilliant and this is a very well constructed play, in my opinion. Also the idea of the son asking for the sun. That is an interesting analogy or play on the words. The son wants the mother's love to be complete - he wants her to recognise him as her return son and using the word 'sun' is almost like saying 'be my loving mother and let me be your loving son/sun. His mother is his only hope in the end. I nearly weep at this final scene this time around. It is so heart-breaking.

"7.And Oswald:the prodigal son returned to never-ending rain at the edge of the western fiords. Ejected from the family home, from the nest, he has grown even more broad-minded than his mother. There's only a suggestion of illness."
Yes, rain and darkness, shadows and ghosts; all these inhabit the family house. Oswald's final fate is the returning of the 'prodigal son'. I knew this young man, who was estranged from his family, and asked to return home to die. I felt this was the fate of Oswald. I could not imagine this poor young man, coming back to parents, who had been cold or distant from him for years; yet oddly he did return from a tropical island he where he has enjoyed life to it's fullest and resided for years - imagine that. It is strange how deeply family draws us back. The connection of family is still strong after long years of separation; perhaps that is a mystery. This story reminded me of this man, who did died shortly after returning to his family residence. It was so completely sad/tragic to witness.

The illness is indeed, only suggested; but, it is evident, if you read between the lines. For one, we know that Oswald has every reason to live; there are glimmers of his enthusiasm for life here and there within the play; the bubbling champagne is one glimmer, that he would prefer to live and be a successful artist and have a good relationship with a woman, be gay and happy, as a youth his age would naturally desire -23 or 4 , I think was stated. He perhaps has his father's enthusiasm for living, but he is upstanding and good and does not possess his father's bad qualities. At the end, we become totally convinced of his dire physical illness, just in the fact, he would prefer the assisted suicide over his impending fate. He knows there is no way out now, but death. He wants to live and struggles against his fate; but, he is smart enough to realise he must accept death, over the more dire fate of becoming an idiot, with no part of his brilliant mind left to sustain him. Death takes on the image of the 'sun' and his only salvation from the fate, he now realises he inherited directly from his father. He not only escapes the dread disease, but he escapes the 'ghosts', the 'darkness' in the house, that have become his fate. Remember too, that dying of a veneral disease, would be attached with great shame, in those days; probably even today, that fact is true; look at those dying of AIDS. That can also be inherited from a parent.

"8.At the end of Act I, Mrs Alving wrongly perceives history be repeating itself."

I don't know if the history is actually not repeating itself. Oswald is Captain Alving's son and Regina is the daughter of the woman, who was taken advantage of by Captain Alving. This stark parellel naturally sets itself in the mind of Mrs. Alving and in a sense, she is reliving her past through the two characters. I think this scene was incredible and brings out the full idea of the title "Ghosts".

Gladys, I hope this helped you understand the play better. You may agree or disagree with me. I welcome any commentary, on my commentary, from you. I liked this play emensely; I even wish to watch it a third time; so that says something. I am still reading the play itself. I will also read "The Master Builder" this weekend and I will watch the play again tonight. I never realised just how incredible Ibsen was before this. I am totally impressed. I don't think his plays are insignificant to our time either; although, one does have to consider that factor while reading or viewing them. I think in a more universal way the issues, and themes, still apply very much today.

[Gladys]

While I accept your recount of the ending, Janine, there's more. Oswald would echo Hamlet's words, "But I have that within which passeth show - These but the trappings and the suits of woe".


He [Manders] is rather sexless actually and I think that Mrs Alving was attracted to him at one time and probably he was attracted very much to her but when she made a move he was frozen and could not perceive any other way for her but to return to her philandering husband.

(1) Also in Act I is this interesting exchange:


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.

Does this exchange question Oswald's paternity, or merely indicate that he is respectable rather than debauched like Captain Alving, his father? Your question may be important:


Did it say how many years it was that they had been married [when] she send her 7-year-old son away?


--------------------


Of course, now Oswald has mixed feelings about that decision and about his father and his mother. The thing is removing him from the house and distancing him, he never got a true picture of either parent and when this happens often children will form a sort of fantasy view of the parents that is inaccurate.

(2) I wonder whether Oswald sees both parents with scarifying clarity, and is even the mouthpiece for Ibsen himself.


I see her as a woman trapped in a bad marriage with no out. She is something like Nora in "A Doll's House'. Maybe, but Nora ends an assertive woman: Helene in 'speechless horror'. Although Mrs. Alving, like Nora Helmer and Aline Solness, is a trapped woman, she doesn't escape!

(4) As to Mrs Alving's frigidity, I am unable to rediscover my evidence. Interesting is:


MRS. ALVING. It was my purchase-money. I do not choose that that money should pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me--everything.


I think he [Oswald] takes the burning the hardest.

(6) But why exactly? That's the prime question. Mrs Alving loses nothing in the fire: Oswald everything.


I knew this young man, who was estranged from his family, and asked to return home to die. I felt this was the fate of Oswald.

(7) With hopes, Oswald, came back. Regine promised salvation, even in the face of death. But salvation was not to be had.


Death takes on the image of the sun and his only salvation from the fate, he [Oswald] now realises he inherited directly from his father. He not only [escapes] disease but he escapes the ghosts, the darkness in the house, that have become his fate.

I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'eternal rain' rather than death, but what truth?


I don't know if the history is actually not repeating itself. Oswald is Captain Alving's son and Regine is the daughter of the woman who was taken advantage of by Captain Alving.

(8) Oswald is unmarried!

Thinking about Act I, Janine, I feel little the wiser on 'Ghosts'. Nevertheless I am certain there is more in the ending than what seems on the surface, having grasped so much in other plays by the 'incredible Ibsen'.

[Gladys]

A bolt from the blue, Janine. How cataclysmic is the ending of 'Ghosts' if Oswald were actually Pastor Manders's son?

What of Regine!!

[Janine]

While I accept your recount of the ending, Janine, there's more. Oswald would echo Hamlet's words, "But I have that within which passeth show - These but the trappings and the suits of woe".
Yes, there is more indeed; I could only touch on some of the things running through my mind. There is a lot there in this one play. I also saw parallels to Hamlet and his fate. I saw the fighting/struggle within each young man, with their potennial youthful aspirations/talents and their entusiasm for living, then the resignation that this was to be his fate: the inevitable death scene to soon take over the play and their very existences. Interesting still, is the fact, that I am watching the BBC play, with Kenneth Branagh playing young Oswald; he later plays a fine Hamlet in his own directed full-length production. Also, of interest, is the fact that Branagh is currently playing in Chekhov's "Ivanov" in London on stage; as Nicholas, he is continually referring to the fact, that he thinks that young Soshia thinks of him as some kind of 'Hamlet' figure, to be saved. Interesting isn't it? I thought of other lines from Shakespeare, as well -"Oh hard condition...."


(1) Also in Act I is this interesting exchange:


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.

Does this exchange question Oswald's paternity, or merely indicate that he is respectable rather than debauched like Captain Alving, his father? Your question may be important:

I found that exchange quite interesting and significant, as well. I think Mrs. Alving cannot tolerate the idea that her son would resemble one little aspect of her late husband. I think the line about him having a 'clerical curve about his mouth' is merely indicating that she doesn't want to identify him one little bit, characteristically speaking, with his father. She separated the two when he was only 7 and hoped the father had no influence whatsoever, on the son, even projecting to his physical development or personality. It might well resemble some aspect of his father, as Mander's points out, but Mrs. Alving will refuse to see this. She can't deal with seeing any resemblence to her late husband; she sees Oswald, as only her own son now. Perhaps, Manders is correct, picking up on a certain expression, that was indeed reminiscent of his father's face. I don't believe it questions Oswald's paternity. I think it would be a stretch to see Manders as his biological father. That just does not seem to fit into the structure of this play. For one, then how would Oswald have inherited the veneral disease from Captain Alving? Secondly, then why did he turn Mrs. Alving away and distance himself from her for all those years? It is an interesting scenerio but I don't think it fits here. Manders is very strict to the point of being rigid and unfeeling and unsympathetic to Mrs. Alvings life.


(2) I wonder whether Oswald sees both parents with scarifying clarity, and is even the mouthpiece for Ibsen himself.
I am not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by 'scarifying'? Not sure I even know what that word means. Of course, he could be the mouthpiece of Ibsen; so often that is the case with author's characters admissions, but I don't really know enough about the background of this particular play, to establish that as fact.


Maybe, but Nora ends an assertive woman: Helene in 'speechless horror'. Although Mrs. Alving, like Nora Helmer and Aline Solness, is a trapped woman, she doesn't escape!
I agree, that they all are different in their actions and results, but all three woman have been 'kept' by their husbands and they feel trapped in a loveless marriage. In this way, they all share a similar theme; and it is this theme that is often explored by Ibsen. Call it a variation on the same basic theme. Go further to say, it is a theme on woman's repression.


(4) As to Mrs Alving's frigidity, I am unable to rediscover my evidence. Interesting is:


MRS. ALVING. It was my purchase-money. I do not choose that that money should pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me--everything.

Exactly; so that from the beginning days of her marriage she has felt as a 'bought' or 'purchased' woman. She feels this sum of money is 'tainted', with the price she had to pay, to stay on with the husband. She does not wish to pass this legacy onto her only son.


(6) But why exactly? That's the prime question. Mrs Alving loses nothing in the fire: Oswald everything. First off, Oswald is going to lose everything and he knows it. At this point in the play, it is evident to him with the admission of his mother's confession of the truths about his father and Regina's mother and Regina. Isn't that when the fire breaks out, right after she tells them this stark truth? Now I am not quite sure. I must check the text again. I think the fire is symbolic to Oswald, as the flames encompassing all of this being. I think this is why he sees it so tragically. "Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust"...don't you think seeing the firey inferno would cystalize the thought of his own fate within his emotions and mind?


(7) With hopes, Oswald, came back. Regine promised salvation, even in the face of death. But salvation was not to be had.

True, but his fate will ultimately be the same - death. Yes, Regina may have given him the salvation, he so desperately sought and needed in his last moments of life. He wanted love and she would have shown him love in some form; now he only has his mother and so he begs her for the love she has long deprieved him of.


I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'eternal rain' rather than death, but what truth?

I will have to think about this part longer. I felt the sun was the salvation and the 'hope', but the way you ask this now, I am not sure how to interpret it. Maybe, I can find some commentary online, about the full significance of the 'sun' and the 'rain' in "Ghosts." Many truths are revealed at the end of the play, so I am not sure which specific truth you are referring to.


(8) Oswald is unmarried! I know that, but what does that have to do with the parallel? I think Mrs. Alving just sees them as two figures, representing a similar scenerio behind closed doors. For one, to her, Regina is the 'servant' girl, not a true integral part of the family. Now she sees them kissing and she is smacked with the realization, that they are nearly commiting incest. The sins of the father are now revisited on the children. I think that is the main meaning of the word 'ghosts', when she exclaimed the word to Manders. Also, if Regina is similar to her mother, and Oswald has any likeness to his father, now she sees them, as she saw her husband and the servant girl, years ago. She is the one seeing the ghosts from her painful perpective of looking back into her past.


Thinking about Act I, Janine, I feel little the wiser on 'Ghosts'. Nevertheless I am certain there is more in the ending than what seems on the surface, having grasped so much in other plays by the 'incredible Ibsen'.

I am still reading the play, line by line, and dissecting it. I will read more tonight. I can't fully comment on the meaning in the ending, until I actually read those lines over several times. Then I may have more insight, into what I think they fully indicate or mean. In this play particularly, one cannot see the meaning altogether on the surface; too much is intimated and suggested and this is the pure brilliance of picking a title, as obscure as the one Ibsen choose - "Ghosts"...can we ever know the full mystery or realism of a ghost? I think the title is perfect. One of the characters who is very prominent in this play is never visible to us and yet his presence is fully felt; that is the father, Captain Alving. Just in this one aspect of the play, we are presented with the ghost from the past, the assumed personification of his character relayed through the eyes and words of the other 5 characters in the play. We will never truly know what Captain Alving was like realistically; so in many ways he is merely a ghost to us. Can we ever know the full truth. I think the play is left this way and very open-ended in this respect and the very end as to whether Mrs. Alving will administer the morphine to her son and end his life. The play leaves on hanging with the ultimate eternal question as to how it truly will end for Oswald. This, to many, is very unsettling. I like open-ending like this one, since I find I can't stop thinking about what will happen next and also the true scope and meaning of the play itself.

[Gladys]

Perhaps Manders is correct picking up on a certain expression that did indeed belong to his father's face. I don't believe it questions Oswald's paternity. I think it would be stretch to see Manders as his father. That just does not seem to fit into the structure of this play. For one, then how would Oswald have inherited the venereal disease from Captain Alving? Half way through Act II, I am finding an ocean of evidence to cast doubt on Oswald's paternity. Did Oswald inherit the (venereal) disease from Captain Alving? Conceivably, he did not! Manders is a hypocrite. He had sex with Mrs Alving when she fled to him, within a year of her marriage, but recoiled from the risk to his reputation in 'Victorian' Norway.

Pastor Manders now makes more sense, Janine. As a Lutheran myself, it had long frustrated me that Manders role in the play seemed so large but so trivial. Trivial no longer. No wonder the play scandalised Norway.


Secondly, then why did he [Manders] turn Mrs. Alving away and distance himself from her for all those years? Pastor Manders, like Hedda Gabler, is terrified of scandal.

(2) By 'scarifying clarity', I mean that Ibsen fearlessly wields a scythe through the hypocrisies of society in Norway; and not without cost to himself.


She feels this sum of money is tainted with the price she had to pay to stay on with the husband. She does not wish to pass this legacy onto her only son. (4) But, inadvertently and tragically, she passes on everything. I read on.


Isn't that when the fire breaks out, right after she tells them this stark truth?

(6) No, before.

(7) In writing, "I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'incessant rain' rather than death, but what truth?" I don't know what truth, myself, but hope we will find out.

[Janine]

Half way through Act II, I am finding an ocean of evidence to cast doubt on Oswald's paternity. Did Oswald inherit the (venereal) disease from Captain Alving? Conceivably, he did not! Manders is a hypocrite. He had sex with Mrs Alving when she fled to him, within a year of her marriage, but recoiled from the risk to his reputation in 'Victorian' Norway.

Gladys, You would have to show me direct evidence to support this idea of that the two actually had sexual relations and proof of the possibility of paternity of Manders: direct quotes or inferences, whatever. Here is where we will disagree most likely. I don’t believe that Manders is the biological father; although, I can see how you might consider that. I am reading the play very carefully also, plus I watched it performed twice by the BBC on my DVD (a very true to the play production) and come up with the exact opposite interpretation of Manders. He is central to the theme of the story; a very important key character, indeed. This is because he represents the establishment, the pillars of society, the strict attitudes of Ibsen’s era, the conventional thinkers, the ‘holier than thou’ people to the point of being biased. If the theory you present, that Manders is actually Oswald’s son, were true, there would be no issue of incest indicated for the two young people; there would be no venereal disease inherited from the father; there would be no unhappy Mrs. Alving, being promptly send home to owe up to her ‘duty’ as a wife. All of these, very important themes and issues, would be non-existent in this play. It would be just another hackneyed soap-opera story of a woman straying to another man and having a son concealed from the public eye, whose actual paternity is a man outside of her marriage; sounds a little like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“. Mrs. Alving might have desired close contact and a passionate, sexual union with Manders at that time; but Manders was too ‘straight and narrow’ in his thinking and convictions to allow this to happen; he was a young divinity student set on his goals of saving souls, not stray wives. No, I do believe he send her abruptly away the night she came to him in desperation and back to her husband, advising her to live up to her duty; the thought of his own sinning was beyond his comprehension. As Mrs. Alving was chained to her duty as a wife, Manders was chained to his duty as a clergyman. I don’t see anything indicated in the text referring to that time in their lives that Manders did not act according to his own convictions. Manders represents duty and disipline and restraint; all the conventions of that society demands of individuals; he represents society’s opinion, and therefore, he is necessary to offset the other characters in this play. You could say this it where the opposition is symbolized - through the character of Manders. Much as in the play by Ibsen, “Enemy of the People”, the town and it's characters are the counterpoint to the 'enemy of the people'. Manders represents the people . If we did not have a Manders in the play, who would represent this idea of conventionality and the mass opinion? He may very well be a hypocrite, but he is faithful to his ideals and has never strayed from convention. I also researched this online and came up with these commentaries. Not one mention the idea of Manders being the actual father of Oswald. Interesting theory, but it just does not work in the structure of this play. There are many ghost in this play, but that is not one of them. The ghost are more subtle than that. You could say this admission, that Mrs. Alving did once go to Manders for support and love is one 'ghost' for them both; however, they never followed through with it, because Manders rejected the unconventional and unholy idea from the start. Yes, they remained friends, but it you noticed he did not come to the house much after that event. He was now uncomfortable with Mrs. Alving. I can well see why given his position. He mentions to Oswald that young people who can't afford to marry should stay clear of each other. I forget the exact lines but I can look them up and quote them. It is during the exchange when Manders is appalled with the mere notion of couples with children living together out of formal wedlock. This reflects clearly Mander's own repressed attitude towards relations between men and women.

This might paraphrase the connection of the three plays and the three woman characters, a little more accurately than I can. I found this online:


Henrik Ibsen, playwright; his works challenged the operation of his contemporary European society and revolutionised drama.

Ibsen's plays contained ideas ahead of their time. In A Doll's House, women's emancipation was championed; in Ghosts, peoples' inability to escape their past was explored and in Hedda Gabler the pressures of society on bourgeoisie women of the time are examined.

His plays were realistic, but made use of symbolism to convey their themes.

Here is the additional commentary.This is from Sparks Notes online. Note the line:
“In the Pastor, we see the connection between public opinion and duty”.


Ghosts
Henrik Ibsen

Analysis
The main theme of Ghosts is the extent to which society invades personal lives. Mrs. Alving, obsessed with keeping up appearances, tries to protect her late husband's reputation. But because of this concern, she not only ends up living a lie and building a memorial to her husband's false reputation, but she also ruins the lives of her husband's two children, Oswald and Regina.

Pastor Manders is also ruled by a neurotic concern for public opinion. It leads him to much foolishness, to the extent that he is eventually tricked into funding Engstrand sailor's saloon. In the Pastor, we see the connection between public opinion and duty. When the Pastor tells Mrs. Alving that she must save Oswald from sin, it is unclear whether he is motivated by a pure sense of moral duty or by a deference to public opinion, because for him they are essentially the same. It is because of the Pastor's principles that he does not give in to the mutual attraction that he and Mrs. Alving share and that would have made them both happy.
Mrs. Alving's speech on "ghosts," in the second act, establishes the play's key metaphor. The "ghosts" of duty and public opinion come to dominate and ruin generations of lives. Mrs. Alving feels that all people are haunted not only by their inheritances from specific people, but by general superstitions that exist within a community. The idea of filial piety, or duty to family members above all else, is such a ghost.

Then I found this online; I will post more of this essay later on; it is very well written, and researched, even though a HS student wrote it:


The Significance of the Title in Ibsen's Ghosts
By Selchie, High School Student

The title of Ibsen's Ghosts is a signpost for the meaning of the text.
An essay hosted at LiteratureClassics.com

The “ghosts” of society’s beliefs and values, and their affect on the individual, is central to the text. Mrs Alving is aware that she is trapped by social opinion. She knows that society believes that “it’s not a wife’s place to judge her husband”, and that she holds very little power. She reads “terrible, subversive, free-thinking” books, which help her to “explain…a lot of the things [she has] been thinking.” Pastor Manders is used to represent the hypocrisy and conservativeness of society. He tells Mrs Alving that “craving for happiness…is a sign of an unruly spirit,” and that she has “no right to offend public opinion”. When Pastor Manders is challenged over his “personal opinions” of the “free-thinking books”, he replies that there are times in life “when one must rely upon the opinions of others.”


Pastor Manders now makes more sense, Janine. As a Lutheran myself, it had long frustrated me that Manders role in the play seemed so large but so trivial. Trivial no longer. No wonder the play scandalised Norway.

I found other commentary and will post some parts later. I will keep researching this, but so far only one article vaguely suggests the possibility to support this theory. Mander’s role, as I pointed out above, it far from trivial. Given all the elements and the opposition of all of the characters, aside from Manders, who would represent convention and church, yes, it is totally understandable how this play would indeed scandalize Ibsen at the time. I can site direct quotes from the play showing the severe and strict attitudes of Manders.


Pastor Manders, like Hedda Gabler, is terrified of scandal. This is probably true, and he shows this throughout the play, however he is did not act on Mrs. Alving’s wishes to make love to her. He restained himself as he advised her to being married and dutiful to her husband. Duty plays a huge role in Ibsen’s plays. In “The Master Builder” the word is repeated almost to excess. Solness’s wife is ever the dutiful woman to her husband and the household; her duty cost her her two twin boys. In “A Doll’s House” Nora knows her place and her duty to her husband and children. In Greta Gabler, Greta knows her duty to her husband and cannot accept it in the end; nor can she allow scandal to enter her house. Some seek a way out., others just harden and accept their fate. Mrs. Alving sought Manders early in her marriage when first realizing her mistake, but to no avail; Mrs. Solness is trapped, but set in her ways of duty; she seeks no way out but she gets some relief in the company of the doctor.


(2) By 'scarifying clarity', I mean that Ibsen fearlessly wields a scythe through the hypocrisies of society in Norway; and not without cost to himself. Most definitly, he does this and he pays dearly for this play and for others. This was not the only controversial play. Surely “The Master Builder” caused a great many eyebrows to be raised.[/quote]

Gladys, never heard that word before so I just looked up in my large college dictionary and it says: “to wound by severe criticism.” Is that what you meant? He does indeed wound himself or his reputation at the time. Many people would not even perform his plays for fear of scandal.


(4) But, inadvertently and tragically, she passes on everything. I read on.
Yes, even though her main goal in life has been to shield Oswald from his father’s reputation/scandal and all that goes with it, she does pass on all to Oswald in the end. No one wins in the end; all her efforts are invane. That is what makes it so tragic.


(6) No, before.
Thanks, I forgot which came first. I recall that the fire broke out very suddenly and they went running out of the house. It was an abrupt change in mood of the play or scene. I will have to review that section.


(7) In writing, "I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'incessant rain' rather than death, but what truth?" I don't know what truth, myself, but hope we will find out.

Yes, let’s research this further and find out together. It certainly presents an interesting contrast of light and dark.

Here are some ideas I have, off the top of my head, about this contrast of rain and sun. I feel the sun represents the modernism that Ibsen is trying to present to the audience. I feel the rain is the opposite; the restraints that society inflicts on people. In the beginning, Oswald comes into the room wearing a light jacket. One article I present, talks about that and how he symbolizes the opposite of the dank, dark rainy North of Norway. He has been living in Paris and he has experienced the light. Light represents modernism/a new order of living and thinking freely; therefore the light jacket which now sets Oswald appart as having progressed to the being modern world. Light can symbolize enlightenment. Light is associated with sun and with fire. The burning of the orphanage might also symbolize fire and en‘light’enment in the midst of darkness and despair. I think that light also can represent ‘truth’. At the end, Oswald asks his mother for all - enlightenment and truth - the sun. I think there can many more subtle meaning for the two words and the contrast. It is interesting to explore those. There is a lot of hidden symbolism in the play; actually in all of Ibsen's work.

Here is another article I found online, that may interest you, since it does present the possibility that Manders could be the father; but quite honestly, I don’t agree with this possibliliy. However; this article is quite good and insightful. This is just a excerpt from it; it would be worth your while to read the entire article, which is a bit long to post here, by

Lidalicious.com
by lida mankovski
Ghosts


Pastor Manders insists by saying, "Yes, but there's a look about the corner of his mouth - something about the lips - that definitely reminds me of Alving. Especially now he is smoking" (Ibsen, 40). Ironically, to Pastor Manders, Osvald resembles his father most when he is indulging in an act that is harmful to his health. This notion is deeply interwoven with the question Osvald has regarding his venereal decease, and the question surrounding its contraction. Moreover, Mrs. Alving disagrees once again by suggesting that he has much more of a clergyman's mouth. This raises a number of questions in relation to the possibility of Pastor Manders being the real father of Osvald (Ibsen, 40). Is Pastor Manders persistent on the idea that Osvald resembles Alving due to the fact that he is attempting to deflate any speculation suggesting otherwise? Despite the numerous directions that this comment could be taken, what is made clear is that these two characters have shared a history together that extends further then mere platonic friendship.

See entire article here
http://www.lidalicious.com/essays/literature/ghosts.html

I do think the two had feeling for each other beyond a platonic friendship. I still stick to my own opinion that Mrs. Alving acted on her impulses and that Manders did not. I think Manders might be protecting himself here, but I think that is in his nature to do so, to the extend of being overly cautious about his untainted reputation, and he might not want Oswald to suspect this possibility. In my opinion, he did nothing out of line, that would indicate that he could be Oswald's father. Of course, if you want to believe this, it is up to you. I personally, think believing this, is going too far and defeats the main idea of the play; it would detract from the main theme of the strict establishment ideals pitted against the new liberal ideas. In each of Ibsen's plays, there must be one character who represents societal restraints and conventional thinking; therefore, I feel that Manders is representative of this, in this particular play. Taint him and he would not hold up as the quote "respectable" character and counterpoint to the others characters in the play.

Just found this online:

Ghosts (1881) touched the forbidden subject of hereditary venereal disease and attacked social conventions as destroyers of life and happiness. The London Daily Telegraph called the play "an open drain; a loathsome sore unbandaged; a dirty act done publicly; a lazar house wit all its doors and windows open."

I also found more references and meanings to to light, fire, darkness, rain. I will post that later on.

[Gladys]

On waking this morning, Janine, the permutations (the subtle ghosts) of Oswald's doubtful paternity set off wonderful fireworks in my brain. And I'm still in Act II.

Movies so often incise the subtlety, the fireworks, from literature.

The evidence for Oswald's paternity is, of necessity, indirect, and early Act II has much of it. (I'll post this evidence in a new thread: The doubtful paternity of Oswald (//www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=672406#post672406)). Ibsen shows, not tells. The large slab I quoted from Act I is interesting in that an almost embittered Mrs Alving says, "rather a clerical curve about his mouth" to her former close friend and pastor, who hasn't set foot in her house for all of thirty years. Alluding to his vocation is this context (Oswald and 30 years) is a little odd. Her choice of words is double-edged, and he reacts as a guilty man might.


If the theory you present, that Manders is actually Oswald’s son, were true, there would be no issue of incest indicated for the two young people; there would be no venereal disease inherited from the father; there would be no unhappy Mrs. Alving, being promptly send home to owe up to her ‘duty’ as a wife.

(1) If Oswald's paternity is doubtful, fascinating questions arise. Did Mrs Alving, who married a dissolute for money, sleep with her husband before fleeing to Manders? Was Oswald born nine months later? Did Chamberlain Alving die of Syphilis? Did Oswald contract Syphilis at conception or in utero? The latter seems more likely although Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society', who so shocked Oswald as they toured the art houses of Paris. Is Mrs Alving's life a lie from beginning to end...and what about Pastor Manders, the man of integrity? Has Regine, in ignorance, left Oswald to die alone? If unrelated, have Oswald and Regine been cheated of happiness? What truth do Oswald's words, 'The sun.--The sun' expose to the dazzling light of day?

Such questions show the greatness of Ibsen.

In the first year of marriage, a distraught Mrs Alving flees to her close friend Manders, leaving her husband forever. He is deeply shocked, but comforts her. Carried away in a state of the highest emotion, they have sex (adultery was common even then), which offers fleeting comfort (they 'followed through with' this 'unconventional and unholy idea'). Understandably, Pastor Manders is not slow to realise the potential for scandal and returns her to her husband within a day. Plausible and inevitable, for a man like Manders.


As Mrs. Alving was chained to her duty as a wife, Manders was chained to his duty as a clergyman. ... Manders represents duty and disipline and restraint; all the conventions of that society demands of individuals This is precisely the target that Ibsen attacks, here and in other plays (most overtly in 'An Enemy of the People'). Yes, 'Manders represents the people'.

(2) I believe 'Ghosts' was his most controversial play.





... about this contrast of rain and sun

(7) As I write, the ending of 'Ghosts' is beginning to make sense! In Act I, Pastor Manders, the priest and prophet, speaks for Ibsen in prophesying the final outcome:


OSWALD. That doctrine will scarcely go down with warm-blooded young people who love each other.

MRS. ALVING. No, scarcely!

MANDERS. [Continuing.] How can the authorities tolerate such things! Allow them to go on in the light of day!

**** Pastor Manders, inadvertently prophesies that the authorities - the pillars of society, including Manders and Helene - cannot tolerate Oswald and Regine, two 'warm-blooded young people who love'. Least of all in the full 'light of day'. There is no room for Oswald 'under the sun'. ****


She goes to the table and puts out the lamp. Sunrise. The glacier and the snow-peaks in the background glow in the morning light.]

OSWALD. [Sits in the arm-chair with his back towards the landscape, without moving. Suddenly he says:] Mother, give me the sun.

MRS. ALVING. What do you say?

OSWALD. [Repeats, in a dull, toneless voice.] The sun. The sun.


If 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity', we and the playwright see his mother and candidate fathers naked in sham. Sacrifying satire indeed.


Ecclesiastes 3:16___And moreover I saw [B]under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

Just 'another hackneyed soap-opera story... like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“'? Not in my opinion. The ending has more in common with 'Romeo and Juliet'.

[Janine]

On waking this morning, Janine, the permutations (the subtle ghosts) of Oswald's doubtful paternity set off wonderful fireworks in my brain. And I'm still in Act II.:lol:I woke up after watching "The Master Builder" and reading some more of "Ghosts" with my poor brain aching with thoughts of Ibsen. I think those "Ghosts" were haunting me all night. Seriously, I slept restlessly last night. I better not read this stuff before I go to sleep.


Movies so often incise the subtlety, the fireworks, from literature.

That can be true, but this boxed set of Ibsen by the BBC, has proved very true to the original plays so far. I am reading along now and I don't see one detail cut from the original text. The productions are somewhat stagey, not at all movie-like. Of times I find viewing a play much better since these were meant to be performed and not read by the general public to begin with. I don't find viewing this one has at all lost it's fireworks. The version I saw was quite dynamic with a great nuanced cast. The only difference I have seen, so far, is I don't think Oswald is wearing a light colored jacket in scene I, when he is first introduced, but I could be wrong. From on commentary I read the light jacket was significant also - it sets Oswald appart from the others on first encountering him.


The evidence for Oswald's paternity is, of necessity, indirect, and early Act II has much of it. (I'll post this evidence in a new thread: The doubtful paternity of Oswald (//www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=672406#post672406)).
Ok, I will check it out and your reasons for believing this; but I still don't buy it as being the case. I just re-read the whole account of the evening when Mrs. A fled to Manners and his replies to her convince me even more that he remained upstanding and kept to his beliefs.


Ibsen shows, not tells. The large slab I quoted from Act I is interesting in that an almost embittered Mrs Alving says, "rather a clerical curve about his mouth" to her former close friend and pastor, who hasn't set foot in her house for all of thirty years. Alluding to his vocation is this context (Oswald and 30 years) is a little odd. Her choice of words is double-edged, and he reacts as a guilty man might.
I am sketchy still about how old Oswald is. I thought I read he was 26 or 28 in my translation and now I can't find the exact text. I noted it at the time, since in the BBC play, I thought they said he was 23 or 24. Now if Manders hasn't seen Mrs. A for 30yrs, then how could Oswald be his son?


(1) If Oswald's paternity is doubtful, fascinating questions arise. Did Mrs Alving, who married a dissolute for money, sleep with her husband before fleeing to Manders? Was Oswald born nine months later? Did Chamberlain Alving die of Syphilis? Did Oswald contract Syphilis at conception or in utero?

Well, most of the commentary online and otherwise lean towards the hypothosis that Oswald's biological father is indeed Chamberlain Alving; also that Oswald contracted congentital syphilis. How do you mean, did she sleep with Alving before running off to Manders? She was his wife, so it's likely she did her wifely duty; therefore, would have slept with him. Whomever fathered him he was born 9 months later. Are you suggesting that Manders had the disease? I don't think that would make any sense. For one, and this is important to the idea of the play, the disease now ties Oswald to his father, Chamberlain Alving, even though his mother has tried to shield him from Alving for years, and now realises she has failed. Oswald has formed his own distorted view of his father and sees him in a different light than his mother does. Because of not being allowed to have first hand contact and information with/about his father, he has formed a sort of idolized image of him.


The latter seems more likely although Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society', who so shocked Oswald as they toured the art houses of Paris.
You lost me here, Gladys, which is 'the later that is more likely?' Also, did it state that Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society' directly or are you assuming that?


Is Mrs Alving's life a lie from beginning to end...and what about Pastor Manders, the man of integrity? Has Regine, in ignorance, left Oswald to die alone? If unrelated, have Oswald and Regine been cheated of happiness? What truth do Oswald's words, 'The sun.--The sun' expose to the dazzling light of day?

Your brain is experiencing fireworks, alright. Maybe you have an overactive imagination, Gladys. You are really running with this theory. Yes, granted this new idea can bring out very interesting, but totally 'hypothetical' questions, in my opinion. Personally, I just don't see the true text evidence that proves or substantiates the idea that Manders could be the paternal father; I don't even see subtext or expressions to back it up. I just can't see it, nor believe in it. I can't see how all this would fit the idea of the story. I think this is like forming an alternate ending to a "Doll's House".


Such questions show the greatness of Ibsen. I know questions are definitely a big part of reading Ibsen but my own interpretation fits most of the commentary I have read, that sticks to the idea of Oswald being related to Alving; he is even said to look something like him. How do you explain that if he is Mander's son; mainly by the fact, of his mother (who is directing her comments away from comparing him to his father, Alving, for her own benefit - she wants him to only resemble herself) assigning a clerical mouth to his facial expressions and then Manders saying she was wrong, and he looks like just like Alving? I think that would be scanty evidence as to determine that Manders is his real father.


In the first year of marriage, a distraught Mrs Alving flees to her close friend Manders, leaving her husband forever. He is deeply shocked, but comforts her. Carried away in a state of the highest emotion, they have sex (adultery was common even then), which offers fleeting comfort (they 'followed through with' this 'unconventional and unholy idea'). That may have been Mrs. Alvings intention but where in the text do you see evidence that Manders and her actually had a sexual affair. I know adultery was common back then; and so it is evident with the husband but Manders was a very religious man and prudish in this ideas of sexual relations outside of marriage. That is quite evident by everything he states. Gladys, you said this about them having sex more than once but I need to see the text that is leading you to assume this is true.


Understandably, Pastor Manders is not slow to realise the potential for scandal and returns her to her husband within a day. Plausible and inevitable, for a man like Manders.

Within a day? I thought this all transpired in one short night. I will review tonight.


This is precisely the target that Ibsen attacks, here and in other plays (most overtly in 'An Enemy of the People'). Yes, 'Manders represents the people'.

Well, we at least agree on one thing.


(2) I believe 'Ghosts' was his most controversial play.I think when it was written it certainly was, and still is shocking to modern audiences, because of the incest and veneral disease themes, and euthanasia is always highly sensitive topic and contraversal issue. It delves into a lot of painful and sensitive subject, ones that make a person uncomfortable to acknowledge or talk about. Mrs. Alving brings up the idea to Manders, that surely there are people in the world related, who don't know of it, and they do end up together.


(7) As I write, the ending of 'Ghosts' is beginning to make sense! In Act I, Pastor Manders, the priest and prophet, speaks for Ibsen in prophesying the final outcome:


OSWALD. That doctrine will scarcely go down with warm-blooded young people who love each other.

MRS. ALVING. No, scarcely!

MANDERS. [Continuing.] How can the authorities tolerate such things! Allow them to go on in the light of day!

So in your opinion, this then proves that Manders had sex with Mrs. Alving? I think that is going too far and assuming much. He is protesting here against the open-minded views of Mrs.A and Oswald. Yes, he mentions the 'light of day' - but what of it? Does that really indicate anything special? If anything, I think Ibsen meant it to indicate enlightenment/truth - in the light of day...in this way it ironic that Manders voices this. He recalls that Mrs. A came to him under the shield of darkness, covertly. But here he is acknowledging that these 'modern' young people show themselves openingly in 'light of day and are not ashamed of their actions, which to him are appalling and unspeakable, sinful. Also, Oswald did state he would go to their houses for dinner or to visit in the daytime - Sunday. Interesting it is 'Sun'- day.


**** Pastor Manders, inadvertently prophesies that the authorities -the pillars of society, including Manders and Helene - cannot tolerate Oswald and Regine, two 'warm-blooded young people who love'. Least of all in the full 'light of day'. There is no room for Oswald 'under the sun'. ****

Just further evidence that the two young people are bathed in the light of honesty and not hiding in shadows or among ghosts.



She goes to the table and puts out the lamp. Sunrise. The glacier and the snow-peaks in the background glow in the morning light.]

OSWALD. [Sits in the arm-chair with his back towards the landscape, without moving. Suddenly he says:] Mother, give me the sun.

MRS. ALVING. [By the table, starts and looks at him.] What do you say?

OSWALD. [Repeats, in a dull, toneless voice.] The sun. The sun.


Is he truly unconscious at this point or just in a sort of stupor. This part actually confuses me a bit. Symbolically I realise the meaning of the word 'sun'. Perhaps it is not meant to be totally realistic at this point to put the focus on the issue of assisted suicide. It is a very dynamic ending indeed. Stark and heart-breaking.

Here is something I dug up on the idea of the light and dark, sun and rain:


There are many symbols present throughout Ibsen’s work. Rain is used as a symbol of the cleansing of evil and impurities. Outside of Mrs. Alving’s home it remains rainy and stormy until she faces the truth about her husband. The rain washes away the disguises so that the truth may be seen. Generally when this takes place the sun, another symbol, rises, revealing the reality of the situation. Mrs. Alving said, “And there we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light” (271). All the characters are afraid to face reality, especially Mrs. Alving,...[quote]


[QUOTE]If 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity', we and the playwright see his mother and candidate fathers naked in sham. Sacrifying satire indeed.

Is this in the play text: 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity'? I don't know where this phrase originated. I am a little lost here. I am the one getting scarified!



Just 'another hackneyed soap-opera story... like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“'? Not in my opinion. The ending has more in common with 'Romeo and Juliet'.

I don't agree at all. How so, like 'Romeo and Juliet'? It's a tragedy for all, but then it could be 'Hamlet'. No one wins in the end. I just meant that the idea or the story centering around Manders being the father is too old and used. I felt that the other alternate scenerio is more unique and shocking.

[Gladys]

I've finished the play, Janine, and there are too many loose ends. Time to think.


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

Manders hasn't seen Helene for around 27 years.


...the disease now ties Oswald to his father, Chamberlain Alving With Chamberlain Alving dying early, the syphilis likely comes from him (in utero), whether father or not.


You lost me here, Gladys, which is 'the latter that is more likely?' Also, did it state that Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society' directly or are you assuming that? The latter being contraction of syphilis 'in utero'. I'm assuming that 'pillars of society' were among Manders' friends.


So in your opinion, this then proves that Manders had sex with Mrs. Alving?

(7) No. I've yet to provide the evidence.


"Outside of Mrs. Alving’s home it remains rainy and stormy until she faces the truth about her husband." Your quote confuses me, in that the story Mrs Alving gives Oswald in act III is much kinder than her account given to Manders in Act I.

Having read, Act III, I am rethinking some of my comments on the ending, which contains several difficult passages.


No one wins in the end. Doesn't Manders? An interesting passage is:


MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. [B]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've finished the play, Janine, and there are too many loose ends. Time to think.

I am not as far as you in actually reading the play yet. I am sorry I am so slow. I have some critical family matters to attend to tomorrow; today I am nervous about those. I've been overly tired lately, too; I try to read some at night and fall asleep after only a few pages:(, but I did read some yesterday in the day so I did fairly well. I want to wait till I finish my reading before resuming too much commenting. Is that ok with you?


Manders hasn't seen Helene for around 27 years.

Not sure that is accurate. In the text I read yesterday they again mention the time duration but specifically say they only have meet for business matters and he has never come to visit them in the whole of her husband's life time. It also spoke of the fact that he was intimate friends with both she and her husband. I did not take that as unsual or meaning anything sexual. One can be intimate in a friendship way and not be at all sexual. Later I will quote the passages. I now got the impression that they moved to the country and then Manders never pursued visiting them. The moved shortly after she was send back to live up to her wifely duty; so Manders refrained from contact and then never went to see them in their new house; however, after the death of the husband, in respect to financial matters, he had some outside contact with Helene assisting her in business matters. We don't really know how long the husband lived or how long ago he died. It seems also that Mrs. Alving is pointing to the fact, that Manders had previously seen her son because she wanted him to compare how he looks now to before; so this is not the first time he has seen the young man. It appears that he did know him as a boy.


With Chamberlain Alving dying early, the syphilis likely comes from him (in utero), whether father or not.

I still believe he is the father and that 'the son inheriting the sins of the father' is one of the main themes in this play. I therefore think he contracted congentital syphilis. Most of the articles/commentary I have read point to this fact. Plus, I think there is clear evidence of that belief by both son and mother at the end of the play. No one can possible know for certain; back then they did not have paternity tests or good testing for syphilis to determine where it originated. It seemed that the two diagnoses Oswald got did contradict each other to some degree. I think the question was whether Oswald contracted it (in utero) or by his own sexual contacts as a young man. It seems they narrowed it down to being most likely (in utero) by the time span and how the disease develops to stage 3 when it is untreatable and irreversible. Therefore the final conclusion seems to be with dr. #1 - in utero, congentital.


The latter being contraction of syphilis 'in utero'. I'm assuming that 'pillars of society' were among Manders' friends.

The text doesn't use that phrase specifically, and it does not say that Manders was actual friends with these sorts; but then again, he was apparently friends with Chamberlain Alving and he was one of that sort of men that Oswald describes, who was married and strayed in far off lands. I think of Mander's involvements more as acquaintances, since Manders seems to me more distant, than a true friend would be. He doesn't seem very warm and he is very judgemental, but maybe he was less so in his younger days. Still I think he was very rigid in his beliefs and stuck to those his entire life. He is just that type personality. He seems very rigid to me.


(7) No. I've yet to provide the evidence.
Ok; maybe you will come across some text, but so far I haven't seen anything truly concrete.


Your quote confuses me, in that the story Mrs Alving gives Oswald in act III is much kinder than her account given to Manders in Act I.

Don't you think she needs to soften it for the son? Afterall, she is talking about his father; she doesn't mean to shatter all of Oswald's estimate of his father so suddenly; that would be a terrible shock; the shock she give the young people is bad enough.


Having read, Act III, I am rethinking some of my comments on the ending, which contains several difficult passages.

They do contain difficult passages. I haven't got to the actual reading of that yet but the play I saw seemed, so far, to follow the actually text/script closely; I have seen very little difference.


Doesn't Manders? An interesting passage is:


MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. [B]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.

If he does represent the establishment, the church and the general attitude of strict society, then perhaps he does win. I was, more or less, thinking of the other characters, asside from Manders; all the others are related by blood, except Regina's step-father and Manders. Also, before I pointed out there was one character not actually physically present but still very much part of the play, Alving. I failed to mention that also Johanna is another presence mentioned often and important to the play. Now add these to the other three and we have four related in someway by blood.

Now that I think of it, I would agree that Manders does win, since he is the opposition. I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders though; I don't think she cares now what happens to her and she will go live with her step-father, although she finds him appalling. She acted as if she desired to live with Manders as his ward or maid, in the beginning of the play, but he turned her right off to the notion. He would not even stay in the household overnight let alone let a young woman who has recently 'developed' live in his household. No, Manders wants to be alone and above any scandal or suspicion. In some ways, he is 'dirtier minded', than the rest of the characters; since he is always imagining of what could befall him or others to taint one. I think Manders fights himself, as a man, more than we realise. He denies his own natural feelings about people, especially women. He acts very sterile and removed and yet he probably fights off his own sexual desires as a man, more than we know.

I probably won't post anymore until I finish reading the play. It is complicated.

[Gladys]

I've read quickly, Janine, encouraged by your critical input to tackle once again this formidable play. Home life is central to Ibsen and I hope things turn out well for you. Please sleep well. And by all means, read the rest of play before further comment.

As you may have guessed, I have been silenced for two days by the complexities of Act III. No wonder I was so dispirited on re-reading the play in August! While, I am still reluctant to broach the ending, a dozen realisations and some fireworks in the past 24 hours are signs of hope.


they only have meet for business matters


Mrs. Alving. Yes, and you [Manders] never once came out here to see us in my husband's lifetime. It was only the business in connection with the Orphanage that obliged you to come and see me.


It also spoke of the fact that he was intimate friends with both she and her husband. I did not take that as unusual or meaning anything sexual. I am arguing for only one brief intimacy, 28 years ago, on that night Mrs Alving fled home: a fleeting celebration of joie de jivre. For the long-promised evidence on Oswald's paternity, see my post titled Quotations touching on paternity (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41838).


We don't really know how long the husband lived or how long ago he died. We do. See my post titled Chronology (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41838).


I still believe he is the father and that 'the son inheriting the sins of the father' is one of the main themes in this play. Except that the quote is 'the sins of the fathers'. For Ibsen, Oswald's syphilis is a consequence of the sin of more than one 'pillar of society', although the infection is likely congenital from the Captain. Even that is not certain:


The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10 – 20 years after infection was first acquired. certain (www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm)


Don't you think she needs to soften it for the son? After all, she is talking about his father You're right. Oswald associates his father with joie de jivre throughout the play.


I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders though; I don't think she cares now what happens to her and she will go live with her step-father, although she finds him appalling. I'm not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing with me that Regine will prostitute herself to Manders and, failing that, she will feel at home working in "The Captain Alving" brothel?


Mrs. Alving. Regina−−I can see quite well−−you are going to your ruin!

Regina. Pooh!−−goodbye.

Ibsen was born a Lutheran. Yesterday morning, in a Lutheran (Bach Cantata) service in Melbourne, antiphonal Psalm 30 included the cantor lines:

...weeping may endure for a night,
but joy cometh in the morning.

[Janine]

Big day today and will answer all tomorrow hopefully. The stress is off for now but my eyes are shutting from fatigue. Be patient, Gladys, and I will be back soon.

Adding to this - it is Tues now and I am going out this evening. I haven't finished the play yet. Hope I am not holding you up too much, Gladys. I will try to post something tomorrow. I have to warn you, I read very slowly.

[Gladys]

I too read slowly, Janine, though faster by the third, fourth or fifth read.

This respite in our discussion has allowed me to systematically imagine each step the ending through all eyes. Only Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' occasioned more reflection.

The interaction in Act III between Mrs Alving and Oswald is a minefield of emotional complexity. Some of the stumbling blocks, which must be explained, include:

Mrs. Alving (coming in from the garden). I can't get him away from the fire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being burned up, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs: Alving. Let me dry your face, Oswald; you are all wet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. You said yourself this evening what would happen in your case if you stayed at home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Well, then this boy[Captain Alving], full of the joy of life−−for he was just like a boy, then−−
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. I had been taught about duty, and the sort of thing that I believed in so long here. Everything seemed to turn upon duty−−my duty, or his duty−−and I am afraid I made your poor father's home unbearable to
him, Oswald.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. I only saw the one fact, that your father was a lost man before ever you were born.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Regina−−I can see quite well−−you are going to your ruin!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, about your unhappy father. I am so afraid it may have been too much for you.
Oswald. What makes you think that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. When the child has nothing to thank his father for? When he has never known him?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Ghosts of beliefs!
Oswald (walking across the room). Yes, you might call them ghosts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. The sun is rising−−and you know all about it; so I don't feel the fear any longer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.
Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−
Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. But this is so appallingly horrible. To become like a helpless child again−−to have to be fed, to have to be−−. Oh, it's unspeakable!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over. You see how easily it passed off! I knew it would.−−And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. (who has been sitting motionless in the armchair, with his back to the scene outside, suddenly says:-) Mother, give me the sun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. (going up to him). ...(Throws herself on her knees beside him and shakes him.) Oswald! Oswald! Look at me! Don't you know me!
~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Janine]

Mrs. Alving. I had been taught about duty, and the sort of thing that I believed in so long here. Everything seemed to turn upon duty−−my duty, or his duty−−and I am afraid I made your poor father's home unbearable to him, Oswald.


Just curious, why you underlined 'Everything', but neglected to point out how many time 'duty' is mentioned in this one paragraph - 4 times! I would have underlined the word. Obviously, Ibsen is stressing this point. I think that both Mrs. Alving and Manders are chained to 'duty'. 'duty' is mentioned often and emphatically in "The Master Builder", as well. I'm sure it is stated often in "A Doll's House". Duty was a prominent and recurrent theme for Ibsen. Throughout the play "Ghosts", I would like to know how many times exactly, the word is spoken. I may make a study of that myself and count them, after I finish my reading. I had to go out yesterday and will be out today and most of tomorrow; can't be helped. I probably won't get back to this until well into Friday. I will discuss the other lines you have mentioned above with the underlined phrases or words then.



Only Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' occasioned more reflection. How true, how true...I am still thinking, from time to time, about that ending in the "Idiot" ...it sort of haunts me like "Ghosts".

[Gladys]

Just curious, why you underlined 'Everything', but neglected to point out how many time 'duty' is mentioned 'Everything' is poignant, particularly in the ending, where Oswald and his mother end up with nothing - not even the ghosts of past beliefs, which vanish with the sunrise. Consider also the following:

Mrs. Alving. Everything of mine is insured−−the house and its contents, my livestock−−everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. That was my purchase money. I don't wish it to pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me, I am determined.
~~~~
Oswald. ...Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?
~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being burned up, too.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, now I can, Oswald. A little while ago you were talking about the joy of life, and what you said seemed to shed a new light upon everything in my whole life.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Mr. Manders knows everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...But now you will get some rest, at home with your own mother, my darling boy. You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over.
~~~~

As for 'duty', Mrs Alving realizes too late that salvation cannot be found in duty but in 'the joy of life'. She never provided such joy to her husband or her son, and all that finally remains is to do her duty in respect to her son: to give instead of 'the joy of life', the the sorrow of death through euthanasia. 'You shall have everything.' Echoing Manders' admonition in Act I, she pitifully asks Oswald, "Don't you know me!".

[Janine]

'Everything' is poignant, particularly in the ending, where Oswald and his mother end up with nothing - not even the ghosts of past beliefs, which vanish with the sunrise. Consider also the following:

Mrs. Alving. Everything of mine is insured−−the house and its contents, my livestock−−everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. That was my purchase money. I don't wish it to pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have
everything from me, I am determined.
~~~~
Oswald. ...Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?
~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being
burned up, too.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, now I can, Oswald. A little while ago you were talking about the joy of life, and what you said
seemed to shed a new light upon everything in my whole life.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Mr. Manders knows everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...But now you will get some rest, at home with your own mother, my darling boy. You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over.
~~~~

As for 'duty', Mrs Alving realizes too late that salvation cannot be found in duty but in 'the joy of life'. She never provided such joy to her husband or her son, and all that finally remains is to do her duty in respect to her son: to give instead of 'the joy of life', the the sorrow of death through euthanasia. 'You shall have everything.' Echoing Manders' admonition in Act I, she pitifully asks Oswald, "Don't you know me!".

Good job, Gladys - you are right; there is a lot of repeat and emphasis on the word 'everything'. In the Lawrence short story thread, we often underline words in the text, as we discuss each part and we learn so much more than we originally perceived. Lawrence makes use often of repetition like this, to drive home his point. Interesting to now see it evident in the play form. That final 'everything' is quite remarkable. It is like the others all lead up to that climatic moment and the final use of the word; making for a high dramatic effect. Interesting, isn't it?

It is funny, thoughout this play I have been thinking of 'Hamlet' for some odd reason; I think because of the mother/son relationship and the 'to be or not to be' aspect of the play; Oswald even says he would want to live, as Hamlet states as well, but both seem to know their fate and accept it at one point in the play. Both have tragic endings, the outcome of which has been determined by the father, both of which are no longer present in the play, both being dead and now 'ghosts' or spirits. Oddly enough, Oswald will most likely leave this world with the overdose of a lethal drug, morphine (poison when given in an overdose); likewise, Hamlet also dies from a drug, which is poison and irreversable. Perhaps Oswald's mother will partake of a drug to end her own life; who knows what will happen after this ending. Gertrude also whipped the sweat off the brow of Hamlet, as Helena whips the face/brow of Oswald. I wonder if Ibsen realised these parallels, when he wrote "Ghosts". Incest also plays a role in each play; in Hamlet he keeps mentioning his mother incestuous marriage to his uncle. If I look closer, I believe I could see even more parallels.

I should underline all the times 'duty' is mentioned as well. I am really very tired out now, since I got home not long ago. I am sort of fading away and still have to do a household taste, which I don't enjoy doing, however necessary. I will try to comment tomorrow night. I have somewhere to go tomorrow, as well in the daytime hours.

[Gladys]

Both have tragic endings, the outcome of which has been determined by the father, both of which are no longer present in the play, both being dead and now 'ghosts' or spirits. Oddly enough, Oswald will most likely leave this world with the overdose of a lethal drug, morphine (poison when given in an overdose)

I disagree that the outcome of Ghosts 'has been determined by the father'. Mrs Alving, rather than Oswald, seems the focus of this play. Her decisions and actions, founded on duty, determine the crucial outcomes. Her husband's despair and Oswald's dread derive from her behaviour.


Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.

Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−

Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.

Oswald can cope with Syphilis and dying, but much worse is the 'dreadful haunting fear' of the helpless child - and later the syphilitic adult stranded in an insane second childhood - abandoned without mercy to a cold and empty world. Homeless in a world without joy. So Mrs Alving's leaving, combined with sunlight after weeks of ceaseless rain, bring back memories of the 7-year-old that crush Oswald forever.

Oswald. (following her). Don't leave me! Where are you going?~~~~


And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.

He does! Oswald's end is understandable but the 'speechless horror' of his mother, confronting her legacy to her son, Regine and her husband is breathtaking. Notwithstanding, she did her duty. Ibsen weaves terrible irony in Pastor Manders' words from Act I:


Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do?

[Janine]

I disagree that the outcome of Ghosts 'has been determined by the father'. Mrs Alving, rather than Oswald, seems the focus of this play. Her decisions and actions, founded on duty, determine the crucial outcomes.
Gladys, I was only pointing to the fact that Oswald's father's philandering lifestyle and his veneral disease determines Oswald's death, physically speaking, in the end; it creates that connection as well of father and son. It was probably stretching comparisons a bit to bring up Hamlet but, the two plays seem to have some similarities; in Hamlet his mother is not entirely blameless either; in fact, most of Hamlet's anger is directed at her or women as representative of his mother. Hamlet is send away to school in England but then comes home like Oswald but feels his home is now a prison. In other respects, both plays engage characters who don't actually now exist - both are ghosts in some aspect; yet both are prominent characters in the plays. I can think of other comparisons to the Shakespeare play. I am sure Ibsen had to have been influenced, if even subconsciously.

You are probably correct in saying the play's focus is on Mrs. Alving. Yes, duty is huge element and her strict belief in accepting her duty has actually been the cause of all the problems. Like she she admitted that she never let her husband feel happiness or the joy of living. I don't think I can blame Mrs. Alving entirely but she it took the two parents to create the situation, so one can't blame the husband entirely.


Her husband's despair and Oswald's dread derive from her behaviour.

Maybe explain this more clearly to me. I don't see how Oswald having now the complete knowledge that he has incurable syphilis and is indeed fated to go mad and then die would not cause a normal person to have dread. I know I would dread any situation that would result in madness or losing ones faculties.


Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.

Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−

Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.


Oswald can cope with Syphilis and dying, but much worse is the 'dreadful haunting fear' of the helpless child - and later the syphilitic adult stranded in an insane second childhood - abandoned without mercy to a cold and empty world. Homeless in a world without joy. So Mrs Alving's leaving, combined with sunlight after weeks of ceaseless rain, bring back memories of the 7-year-old that crush Oswald forever.

Oswald. (following her). Don't leave me! Where are you going?~~~~

Oh, yes, I see the abandonment issue more clearly. Right - he is reliving what he went through when he was taken from the house at age 7 - interesting aspect of the play. There is much layering in this play. I think it is a great piece of literature - brilliant.


And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.


He does! Oswald's end is understandable but the 'speechless horror' of his mother, confronting her legacy to her son, Regine and her husband is breathtaking. Notwithstanding, she did her duty. Ibsen weaves terrible irony in Pastor Manders' words from Act I:


Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Right. I read this part many times over. He definitely puts all blame on Mrs. Alving and she does not deny any of it.


Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do? Exactly how do you mean? It is a pretty open-ened ending and not sure now what will happen ultimately. I like that it leaves one asking a lot of questions; this way the play stays with you long after you close the last page. I know I will be watching the play more than the times I watched it already. I tend to obsess on things like this.

[Gladys]

I hope your home affairs, Janine, are settling down now.


Both plays engage characters who don't actually now exist - both are ghosts in some aspect I think Ibsen is more concerned with the ghosts of belief and prejudice than with deceased individuals.


Maybe explain this more clearly to me. I don't see how Oswald having now the complete knowledge that he has incurable syphilis and is indeed fated to go mad and then die would not cause a normal person to have dread. I know I would dread any situation that would result in madness or losing ones faculties. While many people would dread tertiary syphilis, this 'ordinary mortal disease' is nothing alongside Oswald's paranoia at the prospect of being once again an abandoned child, homeless and unloved. Ibsen esteems genuine family relationships.


Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Right. I read this part many times over. He definitely puts all blame on Mrs. Alving and she does not deny any of it. Ibsen transfers much of that blame to Manders and the 'pillars of society'.


It is a pretty open-ended ending and not sure now what will happen ultimately. Open-ended? I don't think so. Manders and Regine are gone. Oswald is the helpless child, again totally at the mercy of his mother, who has the unenviable choice of leaving Oswald to his nightmare of helplessness, or giving him everything, the one thing he seeks: the black and life extinguishing sorrow of death. Well might she say, 'No, no, no!−−Yes!−−no, no!'.


Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do? I mean: does the view I'm putting deal with the list of difficult passages I highlighted earlier in the thread?

Finally in bright sunlight, Oswald's worst fears have been vindicated. Almost catatonic, he asks along with the 7-yr-child, for that 'joy of life' which, dreadfully, has been withheld from both. And his mother had scuttled Regine, his last ray of hope.


Oswald. (who has been sitting motionless in the armchair, with his back to the scene outside, suddenly says -)
Mother, give me the sun.

[Janine]

I hope your home affairs, Janine, are settling down now.

Oh, concerning my sister it is still touch and go; take one day at a time; no easy solution but things seem more hopeful now. The other was a house emergency - mechancial breakdown - been resolved, thank goodness. Thanks for hoping for the best. Things could always be worse.


I think Ibsen is more concerned with the ghosts of belief and prejudice than with deceased individuals.

Definitely, I do agree with that.


While many people would dread tertiary syphilis, this 'ordinary mortal disease' is nothing alongside Oswald's paranoia at the prospect of being once again an abandoned child, homeless and unloved. Ibsen esteems genuine family relationships.

Yes, that is absolutely true. Now that actually clears up the difference for me; thanks Gladys.


Ibsen transfers much of that blame to Manders and the 'pillars of society'.

True again.


Open-ended? I don't think so. Manders and Regine are gone. Oswald is the helpless child, again totally at the mercy of his mother, who has the unenviable choice of leaving Oswald to his nightmare of helplessness, or giving him everything, the one thing he seeks: the black and life extinguishing sorrow of death. Well might she say, 'No, no, no!−−Yes!−−no, no!'.

I entirely see you point now. This helps a lot in fully understanding that ending. It was just strange she should say no as her last word. I wondered about that and what the final outcome would be. Could a mother really administer that lethal dose to her only son? I am a mother of an only son so I think it would be so horrific and hardly imaginable. But Mrs. Alving has been a person tied to 'duty', so she just might be able to do it in the end.


I mean: does the view I'm putting deal with the list of difficult passages I highlighted earlier in the thread? Yes, that has helped a great deal. I love these discussions. We all learn so much from each other. I think this has been an A1 discussion and it proves one thing - it just take two people to discuss really; more are nice but not always necessary. Thanks for your insights, Gladys. I really do appreciate your repeat readings and attention to detail. I am 'detail' person myself. In the Lawrence short story thread, I very much like to 'dissect' the text (sometimes to a fault) and get below the surface to see just what the author is getting at.


Finally in bright sunlight, Oswald's worst fears have been vindicated. Almost catatonic, he asks along with the 7-yr-child, for that 'joy of life' which, dreadfully, has been withheld from both. And his mother had scuttled Regine, his last ray of hope.


Oswald. (who has been sitting motionless in the armchair, with his back to the scene outside, suddenly says -)
Mother, give me the sun.

Well put. I think we do agree on the ending. I like the idea of his becoming that 7 yr old boy again. Now I see the importance/significance of that factor in the end of the play. It is a lot clearer to me. Thanks again for pointing that out specifically. Very good observation, Gladys.

[Gladys]

I love these discussions. We all learn so much from each other. Indeed, Janine, I began our discussion totally baffled by the play and ended with understanding.


Oswald's paranoia at the prospect of being once again an abandoned child I was wrong. Oswald's fear of abandonment is neither extreme nor irrational. What happened to the 7-yr-old was truly terrible: an indictment of society.

Following a brainwave overnight, I've posted a new thread: Why the title 'Ghosts'? (online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=677610#post677610)


What are we to make of the other homes in the play, the two memorials: the incinerated orphanage and finally Jacob Engstrand's "Chamberlain Alving's Home" for sailors? The quote above concludes my opening post of six months ago. There are always further questions!

[Janine]

Indeed, Janine, I began our discussion totally baffled by the play and ended with understanding.

That is saying a lot, Gladys; you went from 'Oh so difficult to grasp' to 'understanding'. See, these discussions really are invaluable and oh so helpful for our understanding the works better.


I was wrong. Oswald's fear of abandonment is neither extreme nor irrational. What happened to the 7-yr-old was truly terrible: an indictment of society.

OK, I would agree with that. Yes, for a 7 yr old the abandonment issue was huge and it was an indictment of society.


Following a brainwave overnight, I've posted a new thread: Why the title 'Ghosts'? (online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=677610#post677610)

You are a riot, Gladys! How many spin-off threads do we now have on "Ghosts"? I am just waiting to see what you come up with next.;):lol:


The quote above concludes my opening post of six months ago. There are always further questions!

Always...how true....

Here is something I dug up on the play and found interesting:


The ‘‘ghosts’’ in this play are the taboo topics that cannot be openly discussed. This drama is one of Ibsen’s most powerful works, but also one of his most controversial. Its initial publication sold only a few copies, with most of those printed returned to the publisher and no new edition printed until thirteen years later. It was not performed in Ibsen’s native Norway for almost a decade after its world debut in Chicago. In 1898, at a dinner in Ibsen’s honor at the Royal Palace in Stockholm, King Oscar II expressed the opinion that Ghosts was not a good play, and that Ibsen should not have written it. After a moment of silence, the playwright replied, ‘‘Your majesty, I had to write Ghosts.’’

[Gladys]

It was probably stretching comparisons a bit to bring up Hamlet but, the two plays seem to have some similarities; in Hamlet his mother is not entirely blameless either; in fact, most of Hamlet's anger is directed at her or women as representative of his mother. Hamlet is send away to school in England but then comes home like Oswald but feels his home is now a prison. This morning I was listening to the Shakespearean guru, Harold Bloom, discussing Hamlet's relationship with his mother Gertrude. Bloom drew attention to one similarity with Oswald, Janine, that you have not mentioned: neither son can be certain of paternity.

Hamlet, whose closest childhood friend was the jester Yorick, appears to have had little closeness or love from mother or father. The ghost talks of Hamlet's love for him, not vice versa, and appears later only out of concern for Gertrude. Hamlet has reason to believe that Gertrude's relationship with Claudius is decades old, and may well have been sexual. Bloom, himself says, that it is not inconceivable that Hamlet is Claudius' son!

Has Ibsen made this link?

[Janine]

This morning I was listening to the Shakespearean guru, Harold Bloom, discussing Hamlet's relationship with his mother Gertrude. Bloom drew attention to one similarity with Oswald, Janine, that you have not mentioned: neither son can be certain of paternity.

Hamlet, whose closest childhood friend was the jester Yorick, appears to have had little closeness or love from mother or father. The ghost talks of Hamlet's love for him, not vice versa, and appears later only out of concern for Gertrude. Hamlet has reason to believe that Gertrude's relationship with Claudius is decades old, and may well have been sexual. Bloom, himself says, that it is not inconceivable that Hamlet is Claudius' son!

Has Ibsen made this link?

Wow, that is a mind boggler. I had never thought of that possibility before. I am huge on pondering "Hamlet", so that fascinates me. Now, that would be a giant twist to the plot. What then was the motive of the ghostly king? Now, Gladys, are you going to start threads now on 'Hamlet's true paternity?' I can't keep up with you as it is. Intriguing thought though. I will think about it further and see what I come up with.

[Gladys]

I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders ... I think Manders fights himself, as a man, more than we realise. He denies his own natural feelings about people, especially women. He acts very sterile and removed and yet he probably fights off his own sexual desires as a man, more than we know.

Janine, here's a new angle on the matter. As a young man, Ibsen had fled the barren hypocrisy of Norway society for Rome. In 'Ghosts' he tells of the life-sapping nature of small town community, which ruins all except the resilient Mrs Alving. Those ruined include not only Captain Alving and his children but also 'your model husbands and fathers'.


Oswald. Well, you can take their word for it, unhesitatingly. Some of them are experts in the matter. (Putting his hands to his head.) To think that the glorious freedom of the beautiful life over there should be so besmirched!

Who in the play is representative of these 'model husbands and fathers' that so besmirch society? Captain Alving died a decade ago; Mrs Alving, Regine and Oswald hardly qualify; Engstrand is a crippled carpenter and drunkard, lacking in social standing. That only leaves Manders...

I’m sure Ibsen would agree that ‘Manders fights himself, as a man, more than we realise’, which is probably true of all 'your model husbands and fathers'. Since community hypocrisy in Norway is soul destroying, it follows that Manders - like the late Captain Alving - is a soul destroyed.