Ibsen's Evangelical Detective: Evidence and Proof in The Wild Duck

11 Pages·0.167 MB·English

by  Durbach Errol.

Ibsen’s Evangelical Detective: Evidence and Proof in
TheWildDuck
ERROLDURBACH
ABSTRACT:TheforensiclanguageinTheWildDuck—itsemphasisonthesearch
for “proof” and “evidence” in uncovering a number of putative crimes and
misdemeanours—relates the play to the Detective Fiction genre of the late
nineteenth-century. The argument of the paper suggests that Ibsen calls in
questionthebasicpremisesofthegenre(theneed,forexample,touncovertruth
andtraceeviltoitssourcetherebyrestoringachaoticworldtoaformofEdenic
order) and subverts the most fundamental expectations of the crime fiction
reader.GregersWerleactsontheassumptionthattheinvestigatorcanredeem
afallenhumanitybyuncoveringincontrovertiblefactandrevealingundisclosed
motives;buthisdeeplysubjective,evangelicalmethodsdisorienttheworldeven
further,leavingtheaudiencewiththesensethattheuncertaintiesofexistence
makesuch“detection”bothirrelevantanddangerous.
RÉSUMÉ:L’utilisationd’unlangagelégaldansLeCanardSauvage,quimetl’accent
surlaquêtede«preuves»et«d’évidences»endévoilantdenombreuxcrimes
présumésetdedélits,associelapièceaugenrepolicierdelafindu19esiècle.
L’argument principal de cet essai suggère que Ibsen remet en question les
prémissesélémentairesdecegenrelittéraire(parexemple,lebesoindedécouvrir
la vérité et de retracer le mal jusqu’à sa source, ramenant ainsi un monde
chaotique à une sorte d’ordre édénique) et renverse les attentes les plus
fondamentalesdulecteurderomanspoliciers.GregersWerleagitsurleprincipe
que l’enquêteur peut « sauver » une humanité déchue en dévoilant un fait
irréfutableetenrévélantdesmotifssecrets.Toutefois,sesméthodesprofondément
subjectivesetévangéliquesdésoriententdavantageencorelemonde,laissantà
l’audience l’impression que les incertitudes de l’existence rendent une telle
enquêteàlafoisinutileetdangereuse.
ErrolDurbackisProfessorEmeritusofTheatreStudiesattheUniversity
ofBritishColumbia.
SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIANSTUDIES VOLUME18
ÉTUDESSCANDINAVESAUCANADA 2007-2009
1
“B evis ——!” cries Hjalmar Ekdal in Act V of The Wild Duck.
“Proof!”Butitisnotabsolutelyclearfromthecontextwhathe
wantshiswifeGinatoprove.“Jegsynes,duskuldebevise,”she
replies: “I think proof is up to you.” Proof that Hedvig is his
child? Proof of paternity? Proof that her past relationship with Old Werle has
beenwithoutconsequences?In1884andintheabsenceofDNA,nosuchproofis
possible;andfailingallcertainty,Hjalmar’sresponseistorewritethepasthistory
ofhisrelationshipwithhischildasoneofdeceptionandguileonHedvig’spart.
Gregers—whose scheme of moral rehabilitation is about to collapse—protests.
Thechild,heassuresHjalmar,canprovideevidenceofherfidelity—“vidnesbyrd”
(263):testamentaryproof,anactofformalwitness.“Å,hvadvidnesbyrdkanhun
gimig!”Hjalmarcries—“Whatevidencecouldshegiveme.”
Ibsen’s forensic discourse, the insistent and reiterated language of the
crime-novel,Gregers’self-appointedfunctionasprivateinvestigatorofthecrimes
andmisdemeanoursofhisfatherandhisrelentlessattributionofmotiveinthe
questforcertainty,allsuggestthetropesofdetectivefiction—or,atanyrate,the
themesandconcernsandprotagonistsofnineteenth-centurymysterynarratives.
Thegenre,initiatedbyEdgarAllanPoein1841withTheMurdersintheRueMorgue
andthecreationofhisgreatcerebraldetectiveAugusteDupin,Iwouldsuggest,
2
isonepossiblecontextinwhichtoreadTheWildDuck —bearinginmindthat,a
fewyearsafterIbsen’splay,SherlockHolmesjoinedthedetectivesofPoe,Dickens,
3
andWilkieCollins, makinghisappearanceinAStudyinScarlet(1887)toformulate
theprinciplesandmethodologyofdetectionthatnearlyallsubsequentmystery
writerstacitlyacknowledge.
I want, very briefly, to outline the classical tactics and the world-view of
nineteenth-centurydetectivefiction—ifonlytodemonstratehowIbsen,inThe
Wild Duck, so thoroughly undermines and destabilizes the assumptions of
contemporarieslikeConanDoyle.Itmightseemmerelyfancifultomakethepoint
thatDr.Doylewasaneyespecialistforwhomclarityofvisionwasacommitment,
whileIbsenwaschronicallyastigmaticandtendedtoseeexperienceasablur—a
world of contradictions and ambiguities, where everything is subject to
contrariness.AndDoyle,likehiscreation,wasalsoamanofscienceforwhom
precision,accuracyandrationalinductiveprocesseswereparamount.Openthe
stories of Sherlock Holmes at random, and you will encounter this sort of
declarativestatementbythegreatdetectiveabouthisprocedure:
Ithasbeenacaseforintellectualdeduction,butwhenthisoriginalintellectual
deductionisconfirmedpointbypointbyquiteanumberofindependentincidents,
thenthesubjectivebecomesobjectiveandwecanconfidentlysaythatwehave
reachedourgoal.
(1042)
46 SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIANSTUDIES/ÉTUDESSCANDINAVESAUCANADA
4
Even those contemporary detectives, who are habituallydriven by subjective
impulse,wouldsurelyagreethatthegutresponsemusttranslateintoevidence
beforeproofincontrovertiblecanbeestablished.And,likeallthedetectivesfor
whomheisaprototype,SherlockHolmes’smotive(asW.H.Audensuggests)is
“aloveoftheneutraltruth”(410);andhismissionis“torestorethestateofgrace
inwhichtheaestheticandtheethicalareone”(409).Auden’sfinaljudgmentof
thegenre,moreover,invokestheevangelicaloreschatologicalvisionthatsurely
accountsforthemarveloussatisfactionprovidedbysuchfictionandthatIbsen—as
ifanticipatingthegenre—sototallysubvertsinTheWildDuck:“Thefantasy,then,
whichthedetectivestoryaddictindulgesisthefantasyofbeingrestoredtothe
GardenofEden”(24).
This last point, I think, is crucial. The chaos and violence and
incomprehensibleatrocitythatsurroundusinthefallenworldweinhabit,are
allresolvedwhenthemysteryissubjecttorationalinquiryandevilistrackedto
itssource.Detectivefiction,asRobinWinkspointsout,is“moralfiction”(9).It
consolesus,makestheincrediblecredibleonceagain,andtheincomprehensible
comprehensible. “In this sense, then,” writes Winks, “detective fiction
is…conservative,almostcompulsiveinitsbelief(towhich,ofcourse,thereare
exceptions)thatonemayintruthtracecauseandeffect,mayplaceresponsibility
justhere,maypassjudgment,mayevenassessblame”(10).InrestoringustoEden
beforetheFall,itfollows,thedetectiveisakindofredeemer—“theexceptional
individual [in Auden’s phrase] who is in a state of grace” (410). The dreadful
realization,inTheWildDuck,isthatthisispreciselyGregersWerle’ssenseofhis
own role in the fallen world, his mission indeed being to restore humanity to
Edenandtraceeviltoitsindividualsource,thusriddingsocietyofanxietyand
guilt and illusion. My point is simply this: that unlike other detectives in the
narrativetradition,Gregersreliesneitheroninductivelogicnordeductiveinquiry.
He is motivated by deeply subjective eschatological impulses, and he collects
“evidence”withoutanyconcernfortheambiguityoffactsandthefallibilityof
hisproof-seekingmotives.Insteadofrestoringthechaosoftheworldtoorder
byresolvingthemysteriesofexistenceinarationaluniverse,Ibsen’sdetective
tropesdestabilizetheseassumptionsandleavehisaudiencewiththequestionable
veracityofproofinaworldwithoutstablevalues.ItisinthissensethatTheWild
Duckcallsinquestionthemostbasicassumptionsoftheclassicdetectivenovel
andprojectsusintoapost-modernworldofdisorderanddisturbinguncertainty.
Ibsen’s out-of-focus world in The Wild Duck is not, of course, chaotic and
violentandatrocious.Itisaworldofdelicateaccommodationtocircumstance,
illusionsthatsustainfictionalpersonalsignificance,andthesortofhumdrum
lifethatavoidstoomuchreality.Thereisnourgentneedfordetection—unless
onefabricatesacrimeandseeksforthecertaintyofmotiveinthemostequivocal
aspects of human behaviour. It is a twilight world in which no one sees very
clearly—some, indeed, are going blind—and where it is virtually impossible to
EVIDENCEANDPROOFINTHEWILDDUCK 47
acquirereliableinformation.Thetoneoftheplayisestablished,asthecurtain
rises, by the two servants tidying Old Werle’s study—one incorrigibly curious
whoasksquestionsaboutWerle’sprivatelife,theotherincorrigiblydetermined
to deflect them. The answers are all non-committal: “Fan’ ved”; “Kanske det”
(168)—“The Devil only knows”; “Could be.” That is as much as we glean, as
audience members, about most of the putative facts of the play. But Gregers
persists,andheinfectsHjalmar—alltoogullible,whoabsorbsothers’suspicions
byaninsidiousprocessofosmosis—withhisownunfoundedinsinuations.There
isatypicalmomenttowardstheendoftheplay,whenHjalmar’sconfusionrises
topaniclevelashevilifieshislittledaughter(whomheispersuadedtobelieve
isnoneofhis):
HJALMAR: Detforfærdeligeerjonetopatjegikkevéd,hvadjegskaltro,—atjeg
aldrigkanfåvidedet.Menkanduavirkeligtvilepå,atdetmåvære,somjeg
siger?
(264)
HJALMAR: The horrible thing is exactly this—I really don’t know what to
believe—andI’llneverbeabletofindout.Butcanyoureallydoubtthatit
mustbewhatI’msaying?
Confusionandcertaintyalternatewildlyinhisutterance:hisbewildermentina
worldthatwillnotyieldtheinformationheseeks,andhisdeterminationtocling
totheunproveninferencesofGregers’irresponsiblehypotheses.
“Oneformsprovisionaltheories,”saysSherlockHolmes,“andwaitsfortime
or fuller knowledge to explode them” (1038-39). All is subject to disproof in
detectivefiction—andpartofthepleasurederivesfromthereader’santicipation
oftheseexplosions.ButGregers’theoriesarenotprovisionalandaretherefore
not subject to revealing knowledge or disproof. His hypothesis derives from a
deeplyesotericassertionofhisfather’sevil,basedinlargemeasureuponhisdead
mother’s delirious accusations that Old Werle is a lecherous seducer of the
servants,andhisownuncorroboratedsuspicionthathisfatherisacrookwho
incriminatedHjlamar’sfatherintheillegalharvestingofcrownlandandallowed
OldEkdaltogotoprisononhisbehalf.Hereturnstothevillage,aftermanyyears,
to right these wrongs and to save the Ekdal family from the filth and the
corruptioninwhichhisfatherhasmiredthem.(Dirt,disease,andimagesofa
fetidenvironmentareGregers’habitualdescriptionofthefallenworldthatneeds
hisredeemingagency.)Thepoint,ofcourse,isthathemayberightaboutOld
Werle.Orhemaynot.“Fan’ved….Kanskedet.”ButIbsenneverpermitsusto
movebeyondtheequivocalnatureofexistenceandresolvetheuncertainty.The
questionofproofarises,onceagain,inthefirstmajorconfrontationoffatherand
48 SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIANSTUDIES/ÉTUDESSCANDINAVESAUCANADA
sonattheendofActIwhenGregersconfrontsOldWerlewithhispossibleguilt
intheillegalfellingongovernmentland:
WERLE:…Menkendsgerningenernuden,athanblevdømtogjegfrifunden.
GREGERS:Ja,jegvédnok,atderingenbeviservar.
WERLE:Frifindelseerfrifindelse.
(179)
WERLE:…Butthesearethefacts—hewasfoundguilty,andIwasacquitted.
GREGERS:Yes,Iamwellawarethattherewasnoproof.
WERLE:Acquittalisacquittal.
Thereisnoproof,andacourtoflawhasfoundOldWerleinnocentofcollusion.
WhythendoesGregerspersistinhischarge?ItmaybebecauseOldWerledoes
notofferasufficientlyspiriteddefenseofhisownacquittal,andreliestooheavily
ontheverdictofthelaw.ButthereissomethingevenmoresinisterinGregers’
searchforevidence.Heisdeterminedtodrawhisownnegativeinferencesfrom
highly equivocal evidence: the fact, for instance, that his father has given Old
Ekdalsomeworkintheoffice—andpayshimfarmorethanthegoingrate;the
factthathehassetupHjalmarinhisphotographystudio;andthefactthathe
hasconcealedthesecostsfromthepubliceyebyexcludingtheexpensesfrom
the business accounts. Proof of a guilty conscience? Or proof of the old man’s
charitableresponsibilitytoaformerpartnerandhisfamily?“Fan’ved…Kanske
det.”Whatisclear,however,isthatevidentialproofhasbeendivorced,inGregers’
method of detection, from comprehensive motive; and his accusations grow
increasinglymoreincriminatingastheygrowmoredeeplysubjective.
The most damaging and impertinent inquiry, however, remains Gregers’
investigationofHedvig’s“legitimacy.”Itisbaseduponhearsayevidencethathe
treatsascertainty,circumstantialeventsthathetreatsasincontrovertiblefact,
contradictoryproofsthathesimplifiesasunassailableclues,andattributionsof
motive that take no account of the complexity of human response to the
uncertaintyofexperience.Gregersaloneclaimsperfectvisioninanout-of-focus
world where, literally, myopia blurs every fact and every attitude. “Du har sét
migmeddinmorsøjne,”OldWerletellshisson(184).“Youhaveseenmewith
your mother’s eyes”—the eyes of a demented and jealous woman whose
accusations of his father’s infidelity Gregers is only too willing to believe.
ConvincedthatOldWerlepalmedoffadiscarded(andpossiblypregnant)mistress
ontoHjalmar,hebeginsalineofprejudicedandcompromisedinvestigationthat
pilesuncertaintyuponuncertainty.Wasthechild,whosefourteenthbirthdayis
twodaysaway,conceivedinoroutofwedlock?“Fan’ved…Kanskedet.”Gina
and Hjlamar have been married for fifteen years—short of a couple of crucial
months during which she has been ambiguously involved with both putative
EVIDENCEANDPROOFINTHEWILDDUCK 49
fathers.Ginaneverdeniesthatshehadasexualrelationshipwiththeoldman
after his wife’s death, information wrongly concealed from Hjalmar but not
necessarily proof positive of Hedvig’s bastardy. Nor, indeed, is Hedvig’s
encroachingblindnessunambiguousproofthatthepurblindWerleisherfather.
As Hjlamar points out, the child’s failing eyesight has been diagnosed as an
hereditaryafflictionbut,despiteevidenceofanequivocalnature,Gregersjumps
tohisconclusions:
HJALMAR: (sukker)Arveligt,rimeligvis.
GREGERS: (studsende) Arveligt?
GINA: Ekdalsmorhavdeogsåsvagtsyn.
HJALMAR: Ja,detsigerfar;jegkanjoikkehuskehende.
(196-7)
HJALMAR: (withasigh)Hereditary,mostlikely.
GREGERS: (withastart)Hereditary?
GINA: Hjalmar’smotheralsohadpooreyesight.
HJALMAR: Yes,that’swhatmyfathersays.Ican’treallyrememberher.
GinaoffersinformationthatHjalmarcannotconvincinglycorroborate,butthere
issufficientdoubtofareasonablenaturetoindicateaneedforextremecaution.
BothRellingandGinaseetheextremedangertoHedviginpursuingthismanic
lineofinquiry;andGina’sequivocationmayindeedbeaprotectiveploytoshield
thechildandthefamilyagainstdestruction.ButGregerspersists,infectingthe
impressionableHjalmarwithgrievousuncertaintyabouthiswife’sdecencyand
his child’s legitimacy to the point where the distraught man finally confronts
Ginawiththeaccusatoryquestion.ItisoneofIbsen’smasterstrokesofuncertainty
intheplay:
HJALMAR: Jegvilvide,om—ditbarnharrettilatleveundermittag.
GINA:(rettersigivejret;øjnenelyner).Ogdetspørduom!
HJALMAR: Duskalsvaremigpådetteene:HørerHedvigmigtil—eller—?Nå!
GINA:(serpåhammedkoldtrods).Jegvédikke.
HJALMAR:(dirrerlet).Duvéddetikke!
GINA: Hvorkanjegvidedet?Ensligen,somjeger—
(247)
HJALMAR: Iwanttoknowif—yourchildhastherighttoliveundermyroof.
GINA: (gatheringherselfup,withflashingeyes).Andyouaskmethat!
HJALMAR: Youwillanswermeonthispoint:doesHedvigbelongtome—or—?
Well!
GINA:(lookingathimwithcolddefiance).Idon’tknow.
HJALMAR:(tremblingslightly).Youdon’tknowthat!
50 SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIANSTUDIES/ÉTUDESSCANDINAVESAUCANADA
GINA: HowcanIknowthat?Suchawomanlikeme—
Does she know or doesn’t she? Treated like a whore and forced to respond to
insultingcharges,Ginamaintainsadefensiveandsarcasticattitude.Fuelledby
anice-coldanger—herdignityoffendedandherchildvirtuallydispossessedby
maliciousrumour—sheclaimsignoranceastheultimateweaponinherarsenal
ofoutragedwomanhood.If,indeed,sheknows,sheisdeterminednottotell.And
ifHjalmarisdeniedallcertainty,soarewe,theaudience.Doubt,inthemodern
theatre,hasbecomethestock-in-tradeofpost-moderndramatistslikeJohnPatrick
Shanley.But,inGina’sdubiousdisclaimerofignorance,Ibsenwasthefirsttocast
doubtondoubtitself.
What matters, finally, is how to comport oneself in a world of complex
ambiguities,whereevidenceeludesproof,wherepossibilityremainsunresolved
andtruthseemseverelusive.TheWildDuckisfullofstrategiestocounteractthe
miasmaofinsecurityanduncertaintythat,formostoftheinhabitantsofIbsen’s
world,isintolerable.FromRelling’scultivationofthe“life-lie”foreveryonebut
himself,toOldEkdal’sfantasyofthepastrecoveredintheplay-worldoftheattic,
thesealternativefictionstoaworldofindeterminaterealitymanage,somehow,
toassuagetheirfearsofmeaninglessness.OldWerle’sstrategy,however,isthe
most compelling—if only because he confronts uncertainty with what might
conceivablybeanethicofmoralresponsibility.Whatisatissueintheso-called
investigationisthedeedofgiftthatOldWerledrawsuptoprovideOldEkdalwith
a modest pension that will pass, on the old man’s death, to Hedvig. Hjalmar,
well-coachedbyGregers,leapsimmediatelytotheconclusionthatthedeedof
giftisabribe,atrap,atacitconfessionofpaternity—theevidentiaryproofhehas
beenseeking.Itmayindeedbeso.“Fan’ved.”But,asinallassessmentsofOld
Werle’smotives,Ibsenobligesustoconsiderthe“tvertimod”—thecontradictory
evidence—inthesegesturesofreparation.Itisatleastfeasible,inaworldofdire
uncertainty, that the ethically motivated individual will act as if he were
responsible, as if a dubious moral obligation were real. Faced with the
indeterminacyofHedvig’spaternity,wewatchthebehaviourofthesetwoputative
fathers.Hjalmarbrutallycaststhechildasideasnoneofhis.OldWerleprovides
her with an income, on the assumption that she may be his daughter. It is, of
course,ahighlyequivocalsituationintheplay.DowereadOldWerleastheheavy
villain of Gregers’ scenario? Or is he a moral centre whose decency belies the
chargesleveledagainsthimbyhisson,orbyHjalmar’sspitefuljudgmentthathis
blindnessisaformof“retfærdigegengældelse”(244)—theretributivejusticeof
Fate that cost him his eyes? It is the reader-as-director who must ultimately
contemplatesuchissuesraisedbythedeliberateindeterminacyofthetext.
If the themes of detective fiction—crimes and misdemeanours, proof and
detection,investigation,accusationandjudgment—areexplicitinTheWildDuck,
thenthesurpriseoftheplayistocastthedetectivehimselfastheprimesuspect
EVIDENCEANDPROOFINTHEWILDDUCK 51
whoselethalmeddlingderivesinlargemeasurefromacombinationofabsolute
certaintyandesotericsubjectivity.Auden’sevangelicalviewoftheprofessional
detectiveasanexceptionalindividualwho,inastateofgrace,restoressociety
toaconditionofEdenicwholeness,iscounterbalancedbyhisdefinitionofthe
amateurs“whohavenomotiveforbeingdetectivesexceptcaprice,orbecause
…theyaremotivatedbyavariceorambitionandmightjustaswellbemurderers”
(410).Gregersisthequintessentialamateurwhoseevangelicalmotivesreplicate
thoseoftheprofessional,andwhoismotivatedbyacombinationofproselytizing
zealandaprofoundhatredofhisfather.Ibsendescribeshispsychicconditionas
“overspændt” (183, 185)—one of those pre-Freudian attempts to describe the
psychiclife,variouslytranslatedas“highly-strung,”“hysterical,”or“neurotic.”
Moreover,inthisworldoffantasistsinsearchoffictionstoreconstructstability
outofdoubt,Gregers’ownparticularfantasiesabstractfromrealitybyturning
existence into allegories that plunge uncertainty into even deeper levels of
obscurity. The duck—even more than Desdemona’s handkerchief—is the most
grotesquelyover-allegorizedobjectindramaticliterature:atoneandthesame
timeacuckoointheEkdalnest,anembodimentoftheevilimposedbyOldWerle
ontheEkdalfamily,andanemblemoftheircrippledstate.“Nej,védduhvad,
Gregers,”saysHjlamarafteroneofGregers’symbolicexplicationsofhisexistence,
“—dette her skønner jeg ikke et ord af” (204). “Well, you know something
Gregers—Idon’tunderstandonewordofthisstuff.”Hedvig’sconfusioniseven
moreextreme:“Mendetvarligesomhanmentenogetandet,enddehansa—hele
tiden”(204).“Butiswasasifhemeantsomethingquitedifferentfromwhathe
said—allthetime.”Themostsinisteroftheseallegoricalmeanings,ofcourse,is
the implicit correlation of TheWildDuck with the child of dubious origins and
Gregers’unthinkingdisregardofitsconsequences.“Sepåbarnet,”Ginacriesin
thefaceofthisdisaster.“Sepåbarnet!”(248)“Lookatthechild…Lookatthe
child!”Buttoseethechildasalivingreality—notasevidence,notasproof,not
as the object of disreputable motive—is an image that Gregers is powerless to
restore.“Jegvildealttildetbedste,”hesaysapologetically.(248)“Imeantitall
forthebest.”Andtorestoretheworldtoitsunfallenstate,Ibsen’sevangelical
detectiveembarksonhisultimatestrategyofsocialredemption.
IfAudeniscorrectinsuggestingthatthefantasyofdetectivefictionisthat
ofbeingrestoredtotheGardenofEden,thennoworkinthegenrecouldbemore
literalinthatfantasythanTheWildDuck.IfGregers’rangeofreferenceispartly
forensic, it is overwhelmingly evangelical in its pseudo-messianic theology—a
5
theologythatoftenreadslikeapasticheofsome“paranoidprophet’s” prayer
book. Claiming as his purpose-in-life (“en livsopgave,” 221) the pursuit and
proselytizingofavaguelyintuitedClaimoftheIdealthathecarriesaroundin
his heart (“den ideale fordring … i brystet,” 225), he offers the gift of
clear-sightednessandfreedomtothebenightedanddeludedcommunityofthe
Ekdals.“JegharisindeatåbneHjalmarEkdalsøjne…[og]Hjalmarkanjegfriud
52 SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIANSTUDIES/ÉTUDESSCANDINAVESAUCANADA
afaldenløgnogfortielse”(226):“MymissionistoopenHjalmar’seyes…[and]
freehimfromalltheseliesanddeceptions.”Assumingtheburdenoftheworld’s
guilt,hehopestoexpiatehisownsickconscience(“minsygesamvittighed,”227)
evenasheraisesthefallenworldintotheredemptivelightofunderstanding(“et
opgør, som en hel ny livsførelse skal grundes på” 236). Forgiveness and
transcendenceandtheconfrontationwithrealityare theprerequisitesforhis
recoveredparadise;andtoasserttheeffectivenessofhisvision,Gregersdemands
ofHedviganactionthatwilltransfiguretheworldevenasitprovidesevidence
ofherloveandtheproofofhisownsavingevangelism.Shemustmanifest,ashis
neophyteandconvert,theclear-sightedjoyousandcourageousspiritofsacrifice
(“det sande, glade modige offersind” 256). She must shoot The Wild Duck, that
nexusofevilandself-delusionthathisdevil-fatherhasimposedupontheEkdals.
Sacrifice is proof for the evangelical detective. The pistol-shot reverberates in
theattic,andGregersistriumphantinprovokingthissymbolictestimonialtohis
prophecy:
GREGERS: …Detvarvidnesbyrdet!
HJALMAR: Hvilketvidnesbyrd?
GREGERS: Detvarenbarnligofferhandling.
(265)
GREGERS: Thatwastheevidence!
HJALMAR: Whatevidence?
GREGERS: Itwasthechild’ssacrificialact.
Butitisnottheevidencehewashopingfor,noraconfirmationoftheproofthat
Hjalmardemands.NordoestheplayhelpusdefineamotiveforHedvig’ssuicide
toexplainthechild’slastunfathomableact.Despair, confusion,asympathetic
affinitywithherpet,herresponsetoHjalmar’shatefulrejection?Wecannotsee
whathappensintheclosed-offattic;andallweareleftwithisconjectureina
world of mystifying uncertainty. After the ghastly failure of the ultimate
redemptive scheme, after the ludicrous and painful mock-obsequies of the
defrockedpriestandtheposturingfather,Ibsenleavesuswiththecynicismof
RellingandtheprovisionaldespairofGregers—provisional,thatistosay,onhis
havingbeeninthewrong(whichhedoesnotabsolutelyacknowledgeasbeing
thecase).ThedialoguethatbringsthecurtaindownonTheWildDuckisthemost
6
indeterminatestatementinIbsen’sentiredramaturgyofuncertainty:
GREGERS: Isåfalderjegglad,atminbestemmelseer,hvaddener.
RELLING: Medforlov,—hvaderdaDeresbestemmelse?
GREGERS: Atværedentrettendemandtilbords.
EVIDENCEANDPROOFINTHEWILDDUCK 53
RELLING: Å,fan’trodet.
(269)
GREGERS: Inthatcase,Iamhappythatmydestinyiswhatitis.
RELLING: MayIask—whatisyourdestiny?
GREGERS: Tobethethirteenthpersonatthetable.
RELLING: Ha—thedevilitis.
The thirteenth at table? Christ? Judas? The saviour? The bearer of evil? The
professional detective who is himself in a state of grace? The amateur whose
ethicsareoutrageous?
Ibsenendshisplaywithaphrase,similartooneusedinthefirstfewseconds
ofActI,whichepitomizesthemurkinessandtheambivalenceofexperience,the
dubious satisfaction of the quest after unequivocal certainty, the unresolvable
mysteryattheheartofthings,andtheextremedangerthatliesinthepursuitof
the sort of truth that detective fiction persuadesus is still possible.Proof and
evidenceinTheWildDuckbelongtooneofthelowerregionsoftheInferno.
NOTES
1. SamledeVærker,VI,“Vildanden”258.AllsubsequentreferencesinNorwegianareto
thiseditionofTheWildDuck.Translationsaremyown.
2. Thereare,ofcourse,otherexamplesofthedetectivenarrativeindrama:Oedipus,for
example,whorelentlesslypursuesproofandevidenceofcrimetothepointof
self-incrimination;orHamlet,whosedilatorinessandhesitationcanbereadasa
scrupulousinvestigationofmurdertojustifyadubiousformofjustice.
3. InspectorBucket,inDickens’sBleakHouse(1852/3)isconsideredtheprototypeofthe
detectiveinVictorianfiction;andCollins’sSerjeantCuffisthedetectiveinTheWoman
inWhite(1860).
4. HenningMankell’sKurtWallenderisagoodexample,inScandinaviancrimefiction,
ofthedetectivewhoseintuitiverevelationsmustbedredgedintoconsciousconviction
beforehecansolvethecrime.
5. MaryMcCarthyreferstoGregersasoneofthose“paranoidprophets”whoselanguage
isaformof“God-identification,inwhichthesymbolistimposesontheconcrete,
createdworldhisownprivatedesignandlaysopentoquestionthemostprimaryfacts
ofexistence”(79).
6. Ihavereviewedothercritics’responsestothisendingin“IbsenandtheDramaturgy
ofUncertainty.”