From the time of
Bjoernson's first appearance he had attached himself so enthusiastically
and inviolably to him that by the general public he was almost regarded
as Bjoernson's herald. At every opportunity he emphatically laid down
Bjoernson's importance and as a set-off fell upon those who might be
supposed to be his rivals. Ibsen, in particular, received severe
handling. His departure was thus a very hard blow for Bjoernson, but for
that matter, was also felt as a painful loss by those he opposed.
XIX.
Not long after this departure, and immediately after the publication of
my long article on Goldschmidt, I received one day, to my surprise, a
letter of eight closely written pages from Bjoernstjerne Bjoernson, dated
April 15th, 1869.
What had called it forth was my remark, in that article, that Bjoernson,
like Goldschmidt, sometimes, when talent failed, pretended to have
attained the highest, pretended that obscurity was the equivalent of
profundity. When writing this, I was thinking of the obscure final
speech about God in Heaven in Bjoernson's _Mary Stuart_, which I
still regard as quite vague, pretentious though it be as it stands
there; however, it was an exaggeration to generalise the grievance, as I
had done, and Bjoernson was right to reply. He considered that I had
accused him of insincerity, though in this he was wrong; but for that
matter, with hot-tempered eloquence, he also denied my real contention.
Pages:
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346