Table Of Content

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.”