1931

[Lavrin, Janko]. Yibusheng yu Xiao Bona. Zhang Menglin yi [ID D26220].
Lavrin schreibt : "Shaw, being an active 'extrovert', is directed towards external life problems ; the brooding 'introvert' Ibsen, on the other hand, concentrates first of all upon that internal problems of life which can perhaps be solved only upon a supra-logical or religious plane. The whole inner tragedy of Ibsen was due to the fact that, endowed with a profound moral instinct. Devoid of religious consciousness, he was bound to have recourse to purely intellectual solutions, to various philosophical and sociological creed, which led him to scepticism and proved eventually mere illusions, mere 'ghosts' ; for however plausible they be on the plane of logic and reasoning, they were helpless on that plane which is beyond reasoning ; consequently they could not save him from his impasse. Ibsen needed religion as the ultimate justification of his own moral sense, which was strong enough to keep him spell-bound to the end by the uncompromising 'all-or-nothing', and to weigh him down by his continuous feeling of guilt - the feeling of individual responsibility for the evils of all life.
It is interesting to compare in this respect the creative methods of Shaw and Ibsen. For apart from the difference which exists between a comedy and a 'serious' drama, there are certain similarities in the inner constitution of Ibsen and Shaw. Both of them are nonconformist in character, which means that they are stimulated by protest and by fighting against the tide ; both are reformers, both are intellectuals, and both write 'plays of ideas' ; that is, they start with some problems or other, which could not be said in plain philosophic terms, and they prefer to solve my means of their art.

Kam Kwok-kan : Lavrin gives an illuminating study of Ibsen by constrasting him with Shaw. The latter is often treated as a disciple of the former. But with regard to their temperament, artistic concerns, and psychology, Lavrin shows that there are a number of fundamental differences. Ibsen is a moral idealist and his works are in one sense a representation of the conflicts between his ideals and the reality in which he lived. Lavrin affirms that Ibsen writes from an inner inevitability, which is the chief incentive of his works. His own spiritual fighting and experience, which he tries to embody in his plays, are the real cause. For Lavrin, what makes Ibsen different from his contemporaries, is that he does not have religion as a last resort in his moral struggle. Without such a belief, all evils of life become the responsibility of the individual. Ibsen's uncompromising principle of 'all-or-nothing' is an attempt at seeking the support of religion as 'the ultimate justification of his own moral sense'.
Lavrin's remarks were especially useful to Chinese critics and readers alike in the 1930s, who were experiencing a new form of drama different from their own tradition.