The main action, on the other hand, is not only interesting but full of psychological truth. Ellida is one of the most living of Ibsen's women. There are few of his heroines whom one has not seen and recognised in real life; but Ellida in particular I happen to have known intimately, though Ibsen never heard of the lady in question. The character of Wangel, too, is not only very amiable, but very closely observed. Yet even in the working out of this main theme, there is, I think, a technical weakness. We feel that, in the decisive scene of the last act, Wangel's mere statement that he sets Ellida free is an insufficient pivot for the revolution which takes place in her mind. Psychologically, no doubt, it is adequate, but dramatically it is ineffective. The poet ought, I suggest, to have devised some more convincing means of bringing home both to her and to us the fact of her manumission. In default of a practical proof, a symbolic indication might have served; but something we want beyond a mere verbal declaration. It may be taken as a technical principle, I believe, that a change of mind on which so much depends ought, for purposes of dramatic effect, to be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign sufficiently cogent to make the audience fully realise and believe in it.
Another technical weakness, more obvious, though perhaps less important, is the astounding coincidence by which Lyngstrand, the one witness to the Stranger's frenzy on reading of Ellida's faithlessness, is made, by pure chance, to encounter Ellida and to tell her the story.[1] This is, I think, the only real abuse of coinci-*
1 It is suggested that the coincidence is to be regarded as part of the "occult" atmosphere of the play. But I doubt whether this was in the poet's mind; and, in any case, the defence does not seem a very good one.
