Senter for Ibsen-studier
In EnglishSenter for Ibsen-studier |
|||||||||
| Forside | Studier | Forskning | Bibliotek | Om senteret | In English |
For ansatte | |||
Back to Introduction and INDEX
The materials on this website are © copyrighted, and are for the use of individuals and educational institutions only. Any commercial use requires the permission of the compiler & translator P.E. Larson.
The website can be used independently, but it also supports a book:IBSEN AND SCANDINAVIANISM.
Ibsen was involved in Scandinavianism as early as 1848. We know this because a poem he wrote in that year, "The Giant Oak Tree," shows the influence of this movement. In the Fall of 1844, when the following three-part article appeared in a Christiania newspaper, Ibsen was working as an apprentice in a pharmacy in Grimstad, and at that time the pharmacy was also the post office. Newspapers and magazines came to their subscribers in the mail, and presumably when Ibsen had a spare moment he could read them. We have no anecdotal evidence that Ibsen read this particular article, but Monrad was an important intellectual in Norway at that time, and Ibsen’s philosophy teacher during his year at the university in 1850-51.
I.
The thought which as a vague generality is expressed by the term Scandinavian Unity, and which was first articulated as such by a couple of Danish and Swedish writers, has recently become very widespread, and has finally had a success even in Norway, which one could call surprising, considering our countrymen's renowned caution and reserve. In Denmark and Sweden, as is well known, there are already so-called Scandinavian Societies, with the goal of working for Scandinavian unity mainly in literary respects; in Norway, as far as is known, there are still no formal societies with this purpose; but at present the Norwegian student society must be regarded as a center of the Scandinavianist movement among us, since on the whole--not without fervent debates--it has declared itself favorable to the idea, and has been in contact with the Swedish society, from which it has received gifts of Swedish books, just as it has forwarded to the Swedes [some] of our literary productions. It was natural that young people, who are the most easily influenced by what is new, whether it is wise or foolish, were the first to embrace this idea, in which there apparently lay such great things hidden; however, it is a fact that it has now become a subject for many older people's attention and interest as well; it obtrudes itself increasingly as a current issue, and is discussed everywhere far and wide on the right and on the left.
The idea of Scandinavian unity, like every other large and comprehensive idea, as it developed to greater preciseness, had to expose great oppositions and accordingly to awaken conflict, which is the more fervent the blinder it is, and the more that everyday interests and passions have come into play. The Scandinavian Idea has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted in every way, celebrated with enthusiasm as Scandinavia's only salvation, but also on the other hand written off [udstregen] as fanaticism, even as treason against the fatherland. There are enthusiasts who would tear down all boundaries and proclaim one Scandinavia, so that Norway, Sweden and Denmark should disappear; there are also those who suspect every approach to the brother peoples as dangerous. We recall seeing in a Norwegian provincial newspaper twelve reasons, which were to prove the Scandinavian Idea's harmfulness. As is natural, we also have "middle-of-the-roaders" enough, and these manage as usual with a distinction: "as a gesture towards a literary rapprochement Scandinavianism is harmless, perhaps even desirable; [but] as politics--may God deliver us from that!"
As long as everyone makes The Scandinavian Idea into whatever he thinks fit, there is no explanation in this confusion, and the controversy "over whether it is beneficial or harmful for Norway to embark upon it" comes to no end. On the whole it is an improper reversal of the matter, when one is asked about the benefit or harmfulness of an idea. With an idea it is a question only of its truth, or in other words whether it is a real idea, which has its root in the general consciousness and in the nature of the matter, or a mere fancy. Of the so-called Scandinavian Idea it must accordingly be asked, whether there really is an Idea of Scandinavia, of which the former is merely the subjective reflection, and then whether if Scandinavia really is something, is a national unity, which has its definite historical mission, then what this is. But this can only be discovered by a more comprehensive historical consideration, and pending its outcome all secondary considerations with respect to benefit, harm, etc., must be overshadowed.
The recent past has undeniably had a revolutionary, divisive and destructive character. One can date this tendency from the Reformation, which attacked at its root the principle of an external authority brooding over Europe, to awaken by means of an inner--religious--domain the feeling of the individual's independence and eternal justification. This movement must, however, also extend to the political [sphere]; since there were also--by analogy with the aforementioned spiritual hegemony--powerful princely houses with military power and diplomatic connections that gathered under themselves masses of different peoples, who without inner sympathies were held together merely by an outward compulsion. Even if the Reformation seems at first to show favor precisely to secular absolutism, even so it could not fail that in a more distant future its actual principle of independence and individuality must assert itself also in political respects.
This creative spark long smouldering in silence actually broke into flame in the French Revolution, and that movement, which from there spread over Europe, has essentially the merit to have called forth nations instead of empires, nations which have felt their existence and sought to do their own will to guide, instead of merely to listen to the commands of the individual. Everywhere now is detected a tendency to break apart the formerly aggregated masses; everything that has felt itself to be a distinctive feature, attempted also to present itself and assert itself as such in external appearance. This tendency must naturally first and foremost direct itself against the colossus which Napoleon himself--the Revolution's son--with a strange misconception of his calling, had conglomerated: the kingdom of France had to be reduced to the French nation. Over almost the whole of Europe the process continued: Norway seceded from Denmark, Belgium from Holland, Greece from Turkey; the Poles made a desperate attempt to crawl out of the clutches of Russia. Similar movements are detected now, even though they are taking place more quietly. Accordingly Austria is apparently threatened with being split into at least three parts, Ireland is zealously occupied with the issue of repeal, the Prussian Poles grumble behind their beards, and it is only fear which holds them back. In order to show how far the division can go, one can recall the splitting of the "Baseler Landschaft" from the town of Basel. One sees accordingly a striving to create continually smaller and smaller states; the same principle which claims citizenship, freedom and independence for the single individual in the state, claims also recognition for every society which on the basis of a distinctive character can be regarded as an individual.
This striving for independence, this process of individualization, is accordingly, then, considered from one point of view, without purpose and end; since the common charactistics recede as they become more concrete, continually gathering in narrower and narrower circles, and who determines the boundary where a certain distinctive characteristic ends to be able to be a nationality? Acccordingly, on the occasion of Norway's separation from Denmark, and the Norwegians' opposition to any kind of amalgamation with Sweden, one has asked whether the conclusion of the same principle could not lead, for example, to the northern mountain region of Norway separating itself from the southern mountain region. It cannot be denied that Trondheimers have much, both in predispositions and customs, which separates them from the people of the southern mountain region, just as also climatic and other circumstances to some extent seem to indicate separate interests. The aforementioned tendency towards independence would also really be something to be feared, as destructive of everything, as if in world history everything at last separated into meaningless atoms--if it were not accompanied by a tendency in the opposite direction, which has the effect of creating continually larger and larger unities, and shows itself superior to the former [tendency] precisely in that it walks in its footsteps and makes use of its results for its greater goals. This merging, uniting principle is world history's actual nisus organicus, which is actually one with the foregoing and only its positive side. The dissimilar must be separated, in order for the similar to be united; the compulsory conglomeration, held together by outer bonds, must be split asunder in order to make a place for a free association, determined by inner reasons. Freedom and independence consist only by submission under a general law of society; without this they are unreal abstractions. The individual cannot be free and independent unless there are citizens in a state, and the state itself cannot be independent except as a link in a larger whole.
This is not empty philosophizing; one inquires about the history of only the most recent times, to see if a recognizable striving to create larger societies has not followed on the heels of the disorganization. Or much more: the uniting, organizing tendency has from the first moment been indivisible from the disorganizing [tendency]. Is this not already expressed in the concept of nation and nationality, which was expressed with such energy at the same moment one threw off the tyrants' yoke? When the unnatural bond was dissolved, then one immediately looked for a natural one; or more correctly: the latter bond one used already as a belt of strength, as one attacked the former. It was precisely by the invocation of nationality, that the men of the liberation led the battle. And this spirit once evoked cannot let itself be bound again!
It must further be recognized that in the beginning the conception of what actually constitutes a nationality was only vague. To be sure, at first one took this conception only from the negative side; one felt it should be a natural, in-itself free solidarity, not a unity based on dynastic joint ownership. The poet Walter Scott can be said to be among the first who brought to the attention of Europe what significance common descent and language have with respect to the determination of nationality. In his romantic descriptions of England's and Scotland's ancient history he has pointed out with great clarity the opposition between the Saxon and the French people, who have met on the same ground; and after him French writers of history especially have developed the romantic and German-Scandinavian tribal-characters--an opposition which can be said to have become a basic principle in modern historical research.
Practically-speaking, affinity of language and descent, with clearer or vaguer consciousness of its actual significance, gradually manifested itself in several corners of Europe. Germany's unity has been celebrated already for a long time now in the songs of the poets, and at present there is scarcely one young person in Germany who is not an adherent of this idea. South of the Alps one dreams already stronger and stronger dreams about the unity of Italy, and--in Europe's opposite corner we are eagerly occupied with the Scandinavian Idea. Yes, such great power and significance lies in this idea of national unity, this tendency towards unification of related national elements for the development of common freedom and civilization, that it has even brought forth its grandiose caricature--in Pan-Slavism!
Accordingly the historical process--like mechanical motion--allows itself to be broken into two opposing equal powers, one repulsive and one attractive. Separately these powers are simply abstractions; the one without the other would lead to absurdities, atomistic dismemberment or characterless amalgamation. Therefore, since in reality they are inseparably bound together, they limit each other mutually, and therefore could actually only create concrete units. Even though it is difficult to say where the actual border stands for the firmest and most concrete political unity, which we call a state, it is still certain that there is such a border. Yet with this the process of organization does not stop, but continues inwards to create municipalities, outward associations of peoples or confederations. Since outwardly also wider and wider circles exist, which are defined by a continually more abstract sense of community. Indeed, this as been expressed already in the French historians' aforementioned discovery of the German-Scandinavian tribal unity in opposition to the romantic, just as both these tribes, like historical peoples especially, let themselves be construed as a unity in opposition to the Slavs.
Now it is a general law in history, that everything which is in a thought, that is to say not in a loose, subjective thought, which can occur once to someone or other, but in a real thought, given by history itself, strives also to realize itself, to assume gradually a firmer outline. This is basically only a definition of freedom's striving, which aims at realizing inner conscious purpose. And the more nations struggle forward in culture and freedom, the more obviously and more directly will the former law assert itself. Now the first outline acquires the tendency towards unity first in literature; it is most especially a literary unity which evolves. Such a one exists already in general features--one can say--over the whole of civilized Europe; in spite of what is characteristic, and marked obviously enough by the language of the different literatures, there is yet a European literature with its heroes: Dante and Tasso, Molière and Racine, Shakespeare and Lord Byron, Goethe and Schiller, Holberg and Oehlenschlæger--a literature which more and more demands the attention of all educated people, whereas for example the Slavic and Turkish literature with its hundreds of writers is still regarded as being irrelevant to us. Such a literary commonality will now doubtless more and more disseminate itself; yet one cannot leave it there; since that striving for unity is only articulated for the conciousness and realized so to speak inwardly; it seeks gradually also to take possession of the outward domains and accordingly must finally also touch upon the political. It is precisely characteristic of the most recent--freedom's--time, that circumstances develop from within, that literature accordingly is a forerunner for politics, and not, as previously, an idle spectator.
In the old days of barbarism it was not the people but the princes who concluded alliances; they then attempted to make use of whoever they could in order to support their power, and accordingly then one not uncommonly saw the sight of a "tiger mating with a lamb," since the tiger's and the lamb's lord found such an unnatural connection answering to his interests. No fruitful connections for mutual transmission of culture and freedom were then intended; the prince's private passions determined the destiny of the people. However, when nations have come to consciousness and stand at the helm themselves, they want to regulate their connections by their own natural sympathies; commonality in language and customs, together with common memories of the past draw them together, and little-by-little, under literature's influence, they approach the consciousness that they have a common historical vocation, a common principle to manifest in humanity's general process of civilization, and that in order to develop and defend this they must unite both their intellectual and material powers. The perception that every individual state is directly determined to promote the general human civilization, and accordingly can join with anybody else, would correspond to cosmopolitanism in individuals, which indeed also leads them to feel that they are at home in any state and religion, that wherever they are they could act the same way.
II.
The Scandinavian Idea is accordingly in no way an isolated phenomenon, a phantom of an individual's fantasy or mood; it is much more, as we have seen its analogies in all quarters and it is deeply grounded in the general historical development and the whole direction of the times. That our Scandinavia could not be unaffected by the ideas fermenting everywhere in Europe, was so much more natural, because the spirit of history, or to use a more commonly understood expression: Providence, seems recently to have turned its attention more and more towards us. Even the most careless glance over the course of world events cannot ignore, that history withdraws more and more to the northwest. The old world, Rome's orbis terrarum, is limited for the most part to countries around the Mediterranean; the Middle Ages' wide-ranging fanciful upheaval still centers mostly around the former Roman Empire's northern borders, where Romans and barbarians got along together; more recent history belongs to Central Europe, with France to a great extent as the leader. And that the last act of this great European drama will be played especially in our Scandinavia, is evident by much more than the former analogy. The Scandinavian North for the moment stands at the summit of our time's civilization; the enlightenment of the people is at least as great and widespread here as anyplace; Protestantism, whose mightiest champions have already once before gone out from here, has permeated the population more completely here than in any other place. The political freedom in the Norwegian constitution has already raised a magnificent temple; and among our brother peoples, where it has not yet come so far, its voice still sounds already fuller and more powerful, and the time indeed is not far off, when like an Orpheus it will get the stones to move; art has already finished several of the northern temple's ornamentations; science stands like a priest, and poetry already sings splendid hymns previously construed by the priest in its tabernacle, still really often threatened by storm. The rest of Europe already begins to turn its glance more and more up here; what has hitherto stood in the way of our importance has been only our division. Norway, Sweden, Denmark are each by themselves too small to place any significant weight into the scale of Europe; only together would they be able to assert themselves, only together will they be able to carry out with strength the larger and difficult mission to which already they are more and more obviously beckoned. Now in the first place, as far as literature goes, it is evident that an isolated Norwegian or Swedish or Danish literature can in no way arouse the attention in Europe or have the influence in the development of scholarship, as a united Scandinavian [literature can], not to mention that each of the former separate literatures contains to be sure so much that is valuable and genuine in relation to its extent. But in the second place, the separate literatures, which could not be self-sufficient even when they managed without the support which lies in the common bank, would become far more dependent on literature from abroad, and not be able to develop themselves into the powerful distinctive feature, which would achieve a genuine significance. The dependence of Danish literature on the German is all-too-well-known; the Swedish has walked on the Frenchmen's leash more than is proper; about the Norwegian, which is still completely in its childhood, nothing definite can yet be said, but the analogy and simple impression for that matter seem to indicate that it will not be able to keep itself free from mainly English influence. Now we would not in any way want Scandinavia's literature to stand, like the Russian, completely isolated from the German, French and English literatures, which for that matter are not without mutually significant points of contact either; we have suggested above precisely how with these it constitutes a higher unity. But we want Scandinavia's literature to defend its independence in this unity, we want it to stand there with honor, with firm, marked, manly features, we want it to have its complete significance beside the rest. And it is in this respect significant that the Danish writer who has given the strongest support to emancipate Danish poetry and attain that significance--namely Oehlenschlæger --is precisely the one to whom honor belongs for having first expressed the idea of Scandinavia's unity. His poetry is basically as Norwegian as it is Danish, and with the exception of the little difference of dialect, it could just as well be called equally Swedish; and yet nobody before him has sung so utterly nationally, so truly Scandinavianly! Therefore it is so far from being the case that the national consciousness dilutes and loses itself by being expanded over all of Scandinavia, that it much more precisely thereby achieves its actual courage and strength!
But still it does not end with literature; indeed we want not merely to sing for Europe and hold uplifting conversations about our nationality--indeed, they would not listen much to either afterwards, if we could not by more material means give our words weight. Besides, it could possibly happen, while we sang our best, that one or another birdcatcher could get the desire to cage us, one after the other, and then the song would only come to a sad end. So it is a matter of being sure also to have a beak and claws; and while our neighbors in all quarters by alliances and by an altogether better and better organized military capability increase--one can say fearfully--in strength, we must not remain standing in our prevailing insignificance. There was a time when our forefathers, without creating any actual union, were feared over the whole of Europe; but that was then, when in the army itself an individual's strength and valor were the decisive factors. Now everything depends more on the masses and on a rational organization; now an individual Stærkodder is of little significance; now a single flock of either Norwegians or Swedes or Danes with all possible courage will not be able to do the deeds as in the old days. If we will--and we must will it--retain the same relative strength as in the past, then we must follow the development of the times; the berserker's wild energy disappeared a long time ago, and besides would now help us greatly not; let us therefore draw our strength from a more noble source, from the League of Nations, and from the strongest, most beautiful league of nations, which rests on a sacred thought, a national unity and agreement to develop and defend the same idea of freedom.
It lies precisely in the nature of civilization and accordingly in the character of the most recent times, that the spirit, the idea more and more appears and asserts itself over the raw power of nature. Not as if the latter should be useless or superfluous; physical power is necessary precisely to the realization of the idea; but it must more and more present itself as serving the idea; as ruled by it. Its [power's] actual effect depends more and more on that it receives from the idea its firm direction and its inner ordering and economy. The Scandinavian people accordingly will only be able to accomplish anything significant in the future insofar as they are led by the Scandinavian Idea; only under this condition can the natural strength and courage inherited from their forefathers have the right vigor and force and become something other than Thor's prodigious but wasted accomplishments in Jotunheim.
Therefore let us not disappoint ourselves concerning the nature and significance of the Scandinavian Idea. It cannot remain standing here as a literary [unity], but must one day, sooner or later, develop the thought also of political unity, to which it contains the seed (aspiration). Those for whom it was a consolation that the Scandinavian idea was only an innocent concern for literature's development, that it only aimed at greater unity in the bookstore and more rebellion in the literary situation--those who have only dared to give the idea their approval under this assumption, must be stripped of their delusion, and the sooner the better. It is better if they desert completely, since the idea is better served by having the travelers in the middle way and the half-way hucksters as enemies than as friends. However, it is good that the matter is not carried out precipitately; it will have time precisely to develop itself from within, from the consciousness' own depths, and therefore it is perhaps most practical that the active work in the service of the idea be limited at first to the literary situation. It is perhaps even useful that the masses of workers, especially the young people who engage themselves with it, not be conscious at first of any other purpose; their work will thereby be more peaceful, more secure, less marked by self-interest and the passions of the moment. But it cannot fail that one must gradually glimpse, at least as a distant possibility (which in any case one must regard either with fear or antipathy) what the more insightful already perceive as a necessity. A people's literature is indeed never anything isolated, anything existing for itself alone, but has its actual significance in a real existing nationality; it is an expression of a nation's innermost consciousness, and where this is true and strong, there also outwardly far and wide it must and shall break itself a way to unite itself.
For that matter, of what character this Scandinavian unity should be or will become, lies outside the possibilities of the present moment to determine more closely. It would not be difficult to write a book about it and make proposals by the dozen, but that would be only slightly useful. The certain and complete answers to such questions occur only through the course of centuries, not in a thinker's mind. Well runs the old rule, that one should always think before one acts, and from this should follow, not to embark upon anything which one has not investigated completely beforehand; but this division between thought and action must not be pursued too far; since it is certain in any case that the greater, world-historical thoughts are not in themselves fully developed before precisely being acted. What time carries in its womb can only in general contours and for the most part merely negatively be reported in advance. Accordingly the considerations we have initiated above lead more closely only to a firm, unshakeable alliance in war and peace between the three Scandinavian nations, living together mutually and reciprocally, with common interests and cooperation, as far as the separate nations' independence can permit. Since this appears to us clear, that there cannot be talk here about any amalgamation.
The general consideration initiated above has shown that our time's striving for unity has originated precisely from, or has in any case developed itself in inseparable connection with an opposite tendency, a tendency to separate and divide, a tendency which aims at allowing every individuality, every real distinctive feature, to receive its full rights. In this way an adequate counterweight is given, and the self-creating unity is protected from merging in a loose-jointed dull clump. It can be added, that the aforementioned principle of separation in particular seems to belong to the Scandinavian tribe; it is perhaps one of this tribe's most important duties to maintain the eternal justification of the individual. The enterprise of independence is too deeply ingrained in the Scandinavian's whole mind, that he in any way should relinquish it. Evidence of this is furnished by, for example, the energy which the Norwegians have shown to maintain their independence from Sweden--truly a heroic struggle, which even so has not made the union with this kingdom looser or weaker. As a consequence of the same principle one can note our present arrangement with executive committees; which despite the difficulties that perhaps in the beginning it can have entailed, yet must be regarded as a happy sign of the times.
On the whole the Scandinavian countries' scattered geographical position and most highly differentiated natural situation show already that they are not determined to create such a compact mass as, for example, France. Indeed, in that sense not even our literature will become one and without division, evidently to express everything that is alive in the nation, so necessarily what is characteristic and independent in the three Nordic people must also find its expression in their common literature, which accordingly must indeed manifest itself as a unity, but in addition with a certain obvious articulation. Accordingly in this respect the Norwegians' effort to emancipate itself completely from Danish literature deserves recognition, and the Danish are completely wrong to condemn the thought of developing the recognizable Norwegian written language, as a phantom of a narrow-minded Norwegian fanaticism. In spite of all Danish protests, it is already recognized more and more by the language, if something is written south or north of Kattegat, and we need only to get a Norwegian dictionary according to Professor Holmboe's plan in order that it will show how much we have that is remarkable in our vocabulary. And yet are yonder Norwegian Norwegians so far from acting against the Scandinavian Idea's interests, that they are rather to be regarded as its necessary forerunners. A liberation must come first, before a free affiliation can take place; only when Norway truly owns something, can it have something to deposit in the common fund. Therefore, much seems to suggest that Scandinavian literature has in common with the ancient Greek to be divided into dialects; but this did not prevent the latter [language] from being great and immortal and perhaps the most well-rounded which has yet existed.
III.
What, then, has Norway in particular to do with respect to the Scandinavian Idea? First and foremost, not to be afraid of it, as something which will be dangerous to its independence, should it not be altogether as "politically innocent" in its deepest foundation as at first glance it appears. The idea of Scandinavian union would be dangerous only if Norway did not possess strength enough to assert itself beside the neighbor states, if it were not able to behave with perfect dignity in the confederation. By that, then, is already suggested, what first and foremost must be the purpose of the Norwegian nation's endeavors, what there actually is for us to do; that is, namely, precisely as much as possible to liberate ourselves from all undue dependence, to give our independence and all our spiritual as well as material powers the highest possible degree of harmonious development. Let the industries struggle forward, as far as the country's nature will permit; let the military power and a true warrior spirit rise; let science and art be pursued with zeal and enthusiasm; let the whole national spirit be steadily more and more developed and strengthened, by recalling the forefathers' proud customs and achievements; truly, it shall then be felt that our neighbors do not need us less than we them, and Norway's independence in the union will then be sufficiently secure, and by the union doubly secure against every foreign molestation. As far as the industries are concerned, the matter speaks for itself; with respect to the military power, is it bad to neglect it now, because for the moment we have peace. The war will reach us to be sure, and perhaps before we suspect it, and woe to us, if it meets us unprepared! The Scandinavian kingdoms would come to need all the power they could summon, and considerations of their possible union should sharpen our zeal even more in this respect, for once to be able to contribute a not contemptible addition to the common defensive strength. The Scandinavian Idea must on the whole enlarge our vision with respect to our situation; it must make us at once more courageous and more cautious; more courageous, because in union with our neighbors we could expect to accomplish something, more cautious, because for this reason we ourselves are led to attach importance to our military establishment and not to regard it as a useless embellishment. Accordingly, those considerations which otherwise could mislead us into directing our attention all-too exclusively to a one-sided defese, must yield to bolder and more comprehensive perceptions. We would certainly not in any way think of making conquests; but it must be recognized that the division between defensive and offensive war, even though it is emphasized even in our constitution, scarcely permits in reality strictly to be accomplished, precisely because a surprise attack at the right time can often be the most effective, even the only possible means of defense. Especially when a David shall fight with a Goliath it is of the greatest importance to reach the giant with a deft shot from a sling, before he actually gets his crushing club lifted.
And as far as science and literature are concerned, it should still be recognized, that these are not luxuries or toys, but altogether necessary links in a state organization. We could indeed not avoid becoming intellectually dependent oOn those who write our books and on the whole stand above us in education and knowledge; and political independence does not reconcile at all with intellectual dependence. Therefore, not only the immediate practical subjects, but on the whole everything which in general determines spiritual culture, history, philosophy, yes all the way to poetry and the fine arts, must be considered indispensable in every truly independent state. Where a nation lacks this important means to come to full and deep consciousness of itself it is and remains actually incompetent, and its political independence an empty form. If in this respect Norway cannot raise itself to a suitable rank in relation to its neighbors, then it could well be feared, that under a coming Scandinavian union, Denmark especially would raise its old supremacy; --or more correctly, even without a union, the Danes would still dominate us fundamentally.
Yet, we do not suppose that there is any danger; Norway has in its womb so many material and spiritual powers, that when they only become conscientiously developed, they will to be sure secure it an honorable and independent place beside its neighbor countries. But Norway is still a young state, everything is only in its springing-forth; before it can really develop itself to firm distinctiveness, it is indeed best, that at first for the most part it conduct itself separately. Norway has accordingly for the moment no reason to accelerate the Scandinavian union; it must on the contrary still desire a period of preparation, before it can appear beside its neighbors in all situations with dignity, with mature powers and with a firmly marked and consistent and articulate national spirit, and not only from the first moment be able to make an incontestable claim to full recognition, but also later continually to raise its position with honor. A closer association, which will then precisely protect its independence, could perhaps, if it happened too soon, be overwhelming and hinder the still slender shoots' characteristic development. Accordingly--it may also really be the general sentiment among us--at first we take no active step; but we do not hinder the free movement of the idea; we anticipate as a possibility, even as a probability, that at some time it will be realized, and we use the intervening time in order that it really can become to us a rich blessing, as according to its nature it should be. This, we believe, is in any case a far more valuable mode of opinion, than either theirs, who in their limited nationalistic arrogance rely upon our steep cliffs, and imagine that in every respect and in every situation now and in the future we will be sufficient to ourselves, or those who, in dishonorable cowardice, place their trust in our insignificance and weakness, and believe to have in that the best shield against all kinds of misfortunes. That is not what any true, enlightened Norwegian thinks. On the contrary: we feel that in much we are still inferior, that for the moment, alone by ourselves, we have not altogether the weight in Europe as at one time; we suspect that there are imminent hard tests and bad times, where to be sure we could have need of assistance; but we are both proud and intelligent enough to take this preferably from our brothers, whom we similarly could support; and we still feel so much of the forefathers' fire and strength in us that we doubt not of a final victory. We discern it plainly: we are still determined to perform great deeds in the world's great places; the old Norsemen were the terror of civilized Europe, so shall the new Scandinavia be civilization's asylum; our Archaean rock, or rather our enlightened, free and equal spirit shall create the archipelago against which the threatening waves of barbarism and despotism shall be broken and must be cast powerlessly back. There it is written: "thus far and no farther!"
Click to go to Introduction and
INDEX
The materials on this website are © copyrighted, and are for the use of individuals and educational institutions only. Any commercial use requires the permission of the compiler & translator P.E. Larson.