2 Paul H. Grummann 



things, it is quite clear that The Master Builder and all the plays 

 of this period are not symbolical. If, however, we take the view 

 that all thinking is symbolical to some extent, then The Master 

 Builder at once becomes symbolical to a marked degree. 



Our conceptions of individuals are not objective, but we throw 

 all kinds of abstract notions into these conceptions. A person 

 who has stolen thus becomes a thief to us. The application of 

 such terms as thief, liar, lick-spittle implies a measure of symbo- 

 lism in our commonest conceptions. But the process does not 

 end here. A certain individual of our acquaintance may steal 

 and in addition may betray marked characteristics of dishonesty. 

 This may be so pronounced that whenever the thought of dis- 

 honesty comes to us, an image of our dishonest acquaintance 

 appears to our consciousness. We visualize our abstraction in 

 the terms of a concrete personality. This gives us the basis of 

 psychological symbolism quite unlike the older formal symbo- 

 lism which, in my opinion, must remain a superficial art-form. 



Ibsen's habit of thought is essentially symbolical in this sense. 

 He sees an individual who impresses him as a type and around 

 this individual he arrays the peculiarities of the type. 



So in Nora, we see the type of the woman of strong individ- 

 uality ; in Mrs. Alving, the well-intentioned opportunist who makes 

 the best of a bad situation ; in Dr. Stockman, the scientific idealist ; 

 in Hedda Gabler, the strong-willed, self-respecting aristocrat ; in 

 Borkmann, the constructive promoter ; in Solnesz, the conceited 

 promoter who does not learn his profession, but uses spurious and 

 unprincipled means to bolster up his deficiencies. Indeed, it 

 might be said that Ibsen has created a kind of twentieth century 

 mythology in these figures since they reflect our ideas in regard 

 to these various types. 



Since this is the case, we cannot consider Ibsen a realist of the 

 type of Arno Holz, but an impressionist, for he retouches and 

 readjusts his figures in order to present the types clearly. To 

 what extent he does this consciously can, of course, not be deter- 

 mined definitely, nor is it a matter of great concern. This em- 

 phasis of the typical qualities of his characters is so marked that 



, 236 



