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.