International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 08(08):239–246 (2015)

THE TRAGEDY OF THE EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUAL IN THE WORKS

Kakhaber Loria

Tbilisi State University, Georgia

Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) is one of the greatest figures in the history of world literature. One of the
main reasons why the Norwegian playwright is still such a fascinating author is the presence of the
exceptional individual at the centre of his interest. Also in the literary works of the great Georgian
writer, Vazha-Pshavela (1861-1915), one clearly discerns distinctive individuals who, like Ibsen’s
Brand, are marked by mythological features and at the same time reveal almost a fanatical fidelity to
their ideals. Vazha-Pshavela’s as well as Ibsen’s creative writings often appear at the crossing line of
different cultural and literary tendencies. This fact has not been duly paid attention to in Georgian
literary criticism of the Soviet period, which tried to present Vazha-Pshavela as a uniquely realist
writer. The important part of Vazha-Pshavela's writings responds and chronologically relates to the
aesthetics and works of Western writers of his time. In order to adequately understand this connection,
Ibsen and his tragedy of the exceptional individual are highly significant.

Keywords: The exceptional individual, World literature, The tragic hero, Moral maximalism,
Comparative literature.

Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) is undoubtedly one of the greatest figures in the history of the world literature.
He is even often referred to as a Scandinavian Shakespeare. Ibsen’ plays are still being performed with
the greatest success all over the world. The fact that the great Norwegian playwright is still such a
fascinating author also today can be explained by a number of reasons. Among them one of the
explanations is the exceptional individual that often exists in the centre of Ibsen’s interest, the person of
distinctive spiritual strength and might, whose confrontation with the dominated social and moral norms
represents the precondition for the progress and development of the same society, but at the same time it
is the basis of the tragedy of this specific individual. When it comes to the tragic fate of the distinguished
individual, what has been said above can all be applied to Vazha Pshavela’s (1861-1915) literary
characters, too. Vazha Pshavela is a great Georgian writer who is proudly referred to as Georgian Goethe
in Georgia. In his poems, “Aluda Ketelauri”, “Host and Guest”, and “The Snake Eater”, one clearly
discerns in his monumental figures distinctive individuals who, like Ibsen’s Brand, on the one hand are
marked by mythological features and on the other hand reveal almost a fanatical fidelity to their ideals.
According to an anecdote quoted in Tveterås (Tveterås 1981:91), some gymnasium students once
addressed Henrik Ibsen and asked him to comment on one of his dramas, the writer answered in a few
words that he never tired of repeating: “But first of all, this is definitely a work about human beings and
their fate.” However, as observed in Tveterås (Tveterås 1981:91), it’s often impossible to imagine a
person isolated from society and its history. This is wonderfully shown in Henrik Ibsen’s literary writings.
Ibsen obviously knew very well that society could to a significant extent decide the fate of a human.

239
240 The Tragedy of the Exceptional Individual in the Works ...

That’s why, despite the fact that he himself had never been a politician, he was always actively involved
in the social- political life. The writer used to watch any changes in society vigilantly and exposed
complacent state officials, greedy capitalists or deceptive politicians from various wings of the political
spectrum. A number of characters of Ibsen’s literary works suffer defeat in their struggle against a
society filled with controversies, in their struggle against the prevailing morality and the established
model of life which can’t be easily ruined, but conversely, which itself may destroy anyone. The personal
freedom and the individual self are placed within a strict social framework. Human beings lack courage
because of their conscience having been stained in various forms; they have made different kinds of
mistakes in the past and now they are afraid that all these can be used against them. That’s why they
behave cowardly, suffer shock or setbacks and as a result, they frequently find themselves in tragic
situations. So, very often “society crushes the individual and exactly the individual is Ibsen’s subject
matter” (Tveterås 1981:91).
Ibsen went through a prolonged and complicated process of creative work. Ibsen’s early plays, his
historical dramas, are written in a style characteristic of romanticism. (Thematically they are fed by the
distant historical past of Norway. At the same time the attempt of imitating the style found in the ancient
Scandinavian sagas is apparent enough). The faith and fidelity to the human’s vocation as well as the
belief or doubt in his own capability – these themes are the strands running through many of Ibsen’s
creative writings. This concerns both the historical dramas and the so-called “dramas of ideas”, among
which are three of his most well-known plays: “Brand” (1866), “Peer Gynt” (1867), and “Emperor and
Galilean” (1873).
In a number of his dramas the author responds to Danish theoretic and critic Georg Brandes (1842-
1927). In his poem “To Henrik Ibsen” Brandes replies to Ibsen’s letter, where the writer discusses “the
revolution in souls of human beings” (By the way, in his poem Brandes mentiones the phrase – “ Truth
and freedom are the same”, which later became one of the slogans of the Scandinavian literature of the
19th century). By mutual consent both Brandes and Ibsen believed that the future should be based on
education, reason, emancipation, and … (neither more nor less) opposition (Hemmer 2003:212).
In his book, “The history of Norwegian Literature”, the Norwegian literary critic Per Thomas
Andersen cites the narrative according to which the last words which Ibsen exclaimed lying in his
deathbed were: “on the contrary”. (This is supposed to have happened when one of the people being there
was assuring Ibsen that he was on the way of recovery.) Nobody knows if this story is true, but these
possible last words uttered by the writer have been repeatedly used as a kind of sign or key defining his
life and, moreover, his creative writings. As Andersen remarks (Andersen 2012: 234), this, of course,
does not only refer to political resistance. Art resists all kinds of “prevailing truth”, it opposes everything
that “is obvious by itself”, the old remnants of faith and opinions or, as Ibsen himself calls them,
“(recurrent) ghosts”.
Stockmann is a resort doctor, who discovers that the water in the health spa is polluted. This also
includes the drinking water of little town. The doctor expects to be appreciated by the leaders of the spa as
well as the town, thinking that the latter will find a new water supply. But he turns out to be very much
mistaken. The powerful people of the city, among whom is the doctor’s brother, conversely, try to hush
up the situation: it would tarnish their reputation. Moreover, a number of things should be considered:
how much will the new water supply system cost, what losses for the city will be caused by even
temporary close of the spas when carrying out the renewal of the system. Having heard this, the doctor
starts a rebellion. He arranges a public meeting, where he delivers a highly emotional speech. From his
point of view, not only the water but the whole society is polluted. Truth and freedom have enemies both
on the right and on the left. However, the liberals are far more dangerous than the conservatives. The
former represent the majority, and the truth they gather around, is actually obsolete and useless. The truth
of the future is in the hands of that small number of people who struggle in the front-line. Exactly they are
the guides (Stockmann, not surprisingly, places himself among them) standing at the place which the
“cursed, steady, liberal majority” hasn’t reached yet. When the majority reaches that point, the truth will
already be in the hands of the new minority, because, as Stockmann says: “Usual, normal truth can last, as
a rule, for 17 – 18, 20 years the most”. There was a time when Ibsen was considered to belong to the
 Kakhaber Loria 241

conservatives (in 1869, after the play – “The League of Youth” had been performed). Later when in 1877
his drama “The Pillars of Society”came out, Ibsen was even declared to be a socialist, especially beyond
the borders of Norway. It’s noteworthy, that the play, “An Enemy of the People” (1882), eventually
dispelled the ilusions about Ibsen, who did not sympathize with any of the political factions. However, for
Ibsen, the main idea expressed in Doctor Stockman’s tragicomedy, was not a novelty at all. Already in
1872 he wrote to Georg Brandes: “For me, at any rate, the strongest is he who is lonely” (Beyer
1996:198). “An Enemy of the People” ends with essentially the same phrase, uttered by Doctor
Stockman. Certainly, quite a number of people are unable to connect the ideas expressed in the drama
with democratic political ideology in general. Stockmann’s long speech at the public meeting is
undoubtedly a cry from a heart of an individual who, on the whole, has serious doubts about democratic
values. At the same time, we should not forget that the author himself, who created this character, didn’t
have a particularly high opinion of the democracy of his own time.
Vazha Pshavela dedicated three of his already mentioned poems to the interrelation between society
and its most excellent member, “the good lad”. The poem “Aluda Ketelauri” begins as follows: in the
mountainous region of the Caucasus, in a Khevsurian village, Shatili, the messenger, brings the news:
Kists, a Muslim people in the North Caucasus, had attacked the shepherds and abducted the horses,
among them the horse of the most excellent lad Aluda Ketelauri. Aluda, absolutely furious at this fact,
runs after the Kists, finds their trace and kills them. But here comes the serious spiritual turning point in
Aluda: he is fascinated by the bravery of one of the enemies, Mutsali, who, already wounded before his
death bequeathes his rifle to Aluda; he has been so courageous and now he should wear it. Having
returned back to the village, Aluda tells the villagers of his adventure. When he finishes the story about
Mutsal’s heroic death, he adds that he could not manage to cut off the enemy’s right arm, as was the
tradition in the mountainous regions of the Caucasus, and what Aluda himself had often done before
without any hesitation. As Aluda does not bring back the right hand, people do not believe him to have
killed the Kist and are looking at him in fury. In order to make the village believe in Aluda, Mindia,
Aluda’s friend goes to the place of the battle, cuts the right hand off Mutsal and shows it to the
Khevsurians, something he is severly reprimanded for by Aluda. Aluda starts to rebel against the laws of
the community and declares that henceforth he will never cut the right hand off the enemy. This
confrontation is gradually going farther: at a religious holiday, being Christian Aluda brings a black calf
to the “ravine elder” in Khevsureti (in the old days a “ravine elder” was the political and religious leader
in some of the Georgian mountain regions) and asks him to sacrifice the calf for Muslim Mutsali, whom
he himself has killed. The ravine elder strictly refuses. Outraged Aluda commits a blasphemy
unprecedented in that time and circumstances: he takes out the sword, kills the sacrificial calf himself and
prays to his God for the killed Muslim. The ravine elder curses Aluda, declaring him to be a traitor
repudiated forever and calls on the Khevsurians for teaching Aluda and his family the most severe lesson.
In this way, the glorious member of the village in the recent past turns into an “enemy of people”. Aluda
has nobody left to sympathize with him. Even Mindia doesn’t dare to support him. Aluda, lucky to have
survived, with his family has to leave the village and his native homeland forever, as a social outcast. As
Akaki Gatserelia notes, “Aluda belongs to his people with all his blood and flesh. But he can’t be always
faithful to their customs and juridical norms. At the moment of the highest human consciousness he
separates himself from his community, but not according to a preliminary decision. Also, he does not
even confront society, but takes a step which is in accordance with his moral awareness, which he wants
to make obligatory also for the society” (Gatserelia 1974: 448). In this regard, the Georgian “ enemy of
the people” may somewhat differ from Ibsen’s Stockmann, who is forced into confrontation, although
Stockmann, too, is obviously a outstanding individual with his own principles, ideas and the position of
moral maximalism which he is occupying. It is noteworthy that Stockmann as well takes only those steps,
as in the case of Aluda, which are “in accordance with his moral awareness” and which he (like Aluda)
would like “to make obligatory also for the society”.
It’s worth noting once more that neither Vazha Pshavela nor Henrik Ibsen give the description of the
relationship between a weak person and community or even between an ordinary, usual person and the
society. They both depict the enforced contradiction between the best and particularly worthy member of
242 The Tragedy of the Exceptional Individual in the Works ...

society, “the good lad”, as Vazha Pshavela calls him, and the community. Exactly that “good lad”, who
possesses moral qualities unusual for society and is able to protect these qualties, turns out to be alone,
marginalized from the people (Gatserelia 1974: 454). One more example affirming the above mentioned
is Vazha-Pshavela’s poem “The Host and Guest”. It is worth taking into consideration that in this literary
work, the outstanding individual (Jokola, who also becomes an “enemy of the people”) is ethnically Kist
and therefore Muslim, but he turns out to be in the same situation as the Christian and ethnically Georgian
Aluda Ketelauri. Generally, one of the features, characteristic of the heroes of Vazha-Pshavela’s epos, is
the fact that it is difficult to fix categorically in which era they concretely act. We are unable to clearly
identify the boundaries of time for his heroes. In contrast to this it seems possible to clarify the
environment of their action area, which is the mountainous region separating the North Caucasus from the
South together with its ethnically non-homogenous population. But in Vazha’s poems the alternation from
one text to another between the exceptional Georgian Christian and the exceptional not-Georgian Muslim,
emphasizes not only the tolerance and broad humanism of the poet. It underlines the fact that for Vazha
the geographic environment is only a kind of decoration to express his high, common human ideals and
conceptions. From my point of view, the “concretization” which is characteristic of Ibsen’s chronotope,
or time-space, is only seemingly so. I think, actually in Ibsen’s literary writings we mainly have to deal
with the same “decorations” of time and space. This argument allows us to discover the common or
similar themes of the distinguished individual in Ibsen’s and Vazha Pshavela’s creative works, which at a
glance and outwardly seem to be quite different, and reveals the similarity in their artistic – aesthetic
interpretation.
In Georgian literary criticism it has been observed that “Vazha’s best poems are real tragedies in the
antique sense of this word. But the rule of the three unities is not observed, and the action area of the
heroes, who almost in advance and fatally are condemned, is much more comprehensive, situated among
the mountains, mostly in Pshav-Khevsureti [the mountainous region of Georgia]. [...] The main characters
always have an exalted personality; and all of them lose their life, devoured by fog or night” (Gatserelia
1974: 425). In this connection I am not going to speak about the strong traits of personality and almost
heroic, or at any rate, not usual death of a number of outstanding characters in Ibsen, or about the reason
why he was claimed in the West to be a tragic writer. (By the way, in Georgia, too, Ibsen’s poems are
perceived as tragedies). For example, as early as in 1906, a great Georgian writer Mikhail Javakhishvili
wrote about Ibsen’s “Ghosts” under the pseudonym of “M.adli”: „Ibsen called Ghosts a drama, but this is
a weak characterization of the play. Ghosts is a tragedy, a severe and terrible one, which is no less
dramatic than Oedipus the King, Macbeth or Hamlet […]“ (M. Ad-Li 1906: 6). At the end of the article
Javakhishvili places Ibsen among the names of Shakespeare, Sophocles, Euripides and Aeschylus (M. Ad-
Li 1906: 8). Even more interesting is the fact that in this article by Javakhhishvili the author openly uses
the term “Ibsen’s aristocratic radicalism” in order to characterize him. This is a completely obvious echo
of Georg Brandes’ well-known reading of Ibsen. Brandes first used the term to characterize Nietzsche, a
fact that made the latter very pleased. There is no doubt that in Georgia of that time, Brandes and his
interpretation of Ibsen was familiar to many people. It’s worth noting that the outstanding Georgian
literary critic of that time – Kita Abashidze, who distinguished himself by his European erudition, and
whose conceptions of the problems of literature and the arts, and the most significant issues of Georgian
literature, was influenced, as is generally recognized, by Hippolyte Taine, Ferdinand Brunetiere and
Georg Brandes, pointed out: “[...] It’s surprising that Vazha with his demotic background is a more
aristocratic writer than our above-mentioned splendid preceptors [Ilia Chavchavadze and Akaki Tsereteli]
from our aristocratic circles [...]. His poetry is aristocratic both in form and content, in the sense that it is
not accessible to everybody. Not everyone can understand and assess it." (Abashidze 1955: 187). This
opinion is natural if Vazha Pshavela’s complex creative writings are taken into account. The main
creative works of Vazha Pshavela are not at all as easily accessible as most of the literary writings of the
great Georgian representatives of realism and at the same time “Fathers of the nation” – Ilia
Chavchavadze and Akaki Tsereteli – in contrast to Vazha, who lived as a peasant, they belonged to the
aristocracy. In order to fully comprehend Vazha, it is necessary to be a refined, intellectually and
aesthetically prepared recipient. Thus, in a certain sense, one could say that Vazha Pshavela is after all not
 Kakhaber Loria 243

so much a people-oriented as an elite writer. Presumably, this opinion is confirmed by the following
point of view of the well-known Georgian poet and theorist Titsian Tabidze: “Vazha Pshavela died
without having experienced the universal love of the nation, which Ilia and Akaki were honoured with in
their own lifetime” (Tabidze 2003: 340).
“So many wonderful literary works were written about the tragedy of loneliness as it is in Mindia’s
case at that time, and so many heroes of strong will and poetic inspiration were defeated in the unequal
struggle against the circumstance. Cannot there be found a resemblance between Mindia’s hero and
Ibsen’s Brand, Hauptmann’s master Heinrich and generally, Faustian characters, who got exhausted
from “their height” and were defeated in the struggle against the unjust society?” – writes the famous
Georgian literary critic Mikheil Kveselava referring to Vazha Pshavela’s poem “The Snake Eater” in his
book of exceptional value – “ Faustian Paradigms” (Kveselava 1961: 133). As for Ibsen’s “Brand”, Per
Thomas Andersen remarks: “Brand” is a drama which tells us the monumental history about the idealist,
who still dares to take his own way, notwithstanding how much it will cost him – at the same time this is
a text which unmasks and undermines the same idealist, exposes and hands him over to a devastating
critique and in the final analysis it is left to the reader or the spectators to judge Brand.” (Andersen 2012:
241). Even at the beginning of the 20th century, Kita Abashidze wrote about Vazha Pshavela’s above-
mentioned poem with respect to Ibsen: “This poem is the wonderful expression of Ibsen’s splendid
principle. Become what you are, that means what contributes to your individuality, your “self” (and this is
also Vazhas term) and does not subordinate it to anything except your intentions, ideals and desires.”
(Abashidze 1955: 174). And here Kita Abashidze remarks, that Mindia is the superman (Übermensch) but
he betrays his ideal, his talent and reason, and this becomes the basis of his tragedy.
In my opinion, one should make a note also of how the well-known Georgian writer Konstantine
Gamsaxurdia understands Brand. In the Georgian writer’s opinion Brand (and also Dr. Stockmann) are
“... people poisoned by the ideals of the superhuman that is characteristic of Nietzsche. But if Zarathustra
moved into the desert, Ibsen’s characters move out towards the people from the desert created in their
own soul in order to preach the concept of a new, pacified, purified humanity to them. That’s why Ibsen
used to struggle with ethical problems like a Goliath. He was above all a moral reformer, preacher and
people’s tribune!” (Gamsakhurdia 1963: 424) At the same time, Gamsakhurdia proclaims that “Ibsen was
as fanatic and as fond of preaching as Brand. Either everything or nothing!” And he adds that it is exactly
people like Brand who “create spiritual culture, such people make history go round, because fishlike,
cold-blooded people are unable to create anything in the world except for a stagnate, philistine existence”
(Gamsakhurdia 1963:425). In this evaluation of Ibsen as another Brand, Gamsakhurdia is not alone. Here
we must remember at least also Ibsen’s letter to Peter Hansen, where he says: “Brand is myself, in my
best moments” (Brand er mig selv i mine bedste øjeblikke). As a matter of fact, Mikheil Kveselava
mentions Mindia, the main protagonist of the poem “The Snake Eater”, together with Ibsen’s Brand.
Mindia, too, can easily be equated with Vazha Pshavela, the poem’s author. Only in contrast to Vazha and
Ibsen the main character of “The Snake Eater” finally gives in and makes compromises with “a stagnate,
philistine existence”, an act that to him is equivalent to suicide (it’s noteworthy that later, the desperate
Mindia actually kills himself). As the basis of this poem Vazha-Pshavela has chosen the folk legend about
“Khogai Mindi”, a legend well known in East-Georgian mountain regions, taking it as his point of
departure for the poem’s philosophical generalization and artistic-aesthetic development. According to
Vazha, Mindia was taken captive by the “kaji”, demonlike figures in Georgian folklore. In this poem, the
kaji used to eat snakes and Mindia clandestinely also ate a snake for the purpose of poisoning himself.
But instead of bringing harm, this served Mindia well: he was made a wizard who understood the
language of, generally, nature, including of all kinds of plants. Through understanding the language of
nature he became a medicine man and did a number of useful deeds. In addition he became the leader of
his tribe – the Khevsurians – in their defensive battles. Mindia is the completely irreplaceable member of
his tribe but the community still looks at him with suspicion – not everybody believes in his special skills.
That’s why Mindia is spiritually all alone. At the same time even his wife, who certainly doesn’t
understand him, compels Mindia to hunt and cut wood, like everybody else does, but Mindia doesn’t want
to do it because he considers everything in nature to be alive, understands the languages of all and that’s
244 The Tragedy of the Exceptional Individual in the Works ...

why he can’t condemn them to death. At last Mindia gives in to the influence of his wife and the
community and starts to show the same consumer – philistine attitude towards nature as the rest of the
community and as a result he gradually loses his amazing link with nature and his faculty to understand
its language. Afterwards Mindia becomes completely useless for the society and for his own self as well,
something he himself realizes and ends his life tragically.
Vazha Pshavela is rightly called the great secret keeper of nature, in a number of his works nature is
impersonated and each of the creatures and natural phenomena has its own language. From this we may
conclude that the author himself certainly is a kind of Mindia and “The Snake Eater”. But in contrast to
his own characters, Vazha has never experienced the duality of thought and belief (and maybe one of the
main bottom lines of the poem is to show what would have happened to the writer if he had been tired of
his own “height” and had betrayed his ideals and desire). And Mindia’s tragedy is exactly his duality. In
this respect, this character substantially differs not only from Ibsen’s characters, already mentioned above
(one of them Brand, whose similarity to Mindia as a Faustian character, has been emphasized by Mikheil
Kveselava and it’s difficult not to agree with him), but it is different also from Vazha-Pshavela’s
outstanding characters such as Aluda Ketelauri and Kist - Jokola, who “[…] remain faithful to their
ethical credo till the end, but Mindia’s tragedy is of a different nature and is more complicated [...] If in
“Aluda Ketelauri” and “Guest and Host” the poet depicted the ethical loneliness of his favourite
characters among their brethren [as Ibsen showed it in the case of Stockmann and, to a certain extent, in
the case of Brand] and if in these creative works he calls the main attention to the awakening the humane
ideals in the highlander hero and his spiritual crisis caused on this basis, in “The Snake Eater” is
described the mental loneliness of the good lad among his countrymen. Mindia’s crisis is the crisis of
belief and world outlook […].” (Gatserelia 1974: 461).
As for Ibsen’s Brand, in contrast to Mindia (who after the great hesitation and resistance still made
compromise and betrayed the principles about which he was even preaching to others after having
understood the mystical language of nature) Brand ignored his wife, family, the life of his own child, and
all the circumstances which could impede his almost fanatic “life’s calling”. Brand is unyieldingly strict
with his own self as well as with everything and everybody. His maximalistic moral and life’s principle
“either everything or nothing” finally becomes the precondition for his own tragedy. The Norwegian
priest – Brand in contrast to Mindia (som experienced mainly spiritual and intellectual discomfort)
sacrificed everything precious, whatever he possessed in his life, to the spiritual freedom and moral
forging of the people, who soon after throw stones at Brand, in the direct sense of this expression, and in
this way they got rid of him.
It is, of course, impossible to give a univocal interpretation of Ibsen’s brilliant play and that’s why
there exist a innumerable readings of it and it is exactly this fact that secures the fame of “Brand” among
the masterpieces of world literature. But independently of any reading, it’s obvious, that like Mindia and
other heroes, the fate of an outstanding individual such as Brand is never easy and his ways are not
covered with roses and violets, notwithstanding his choices: moral compromise or moral maximalism.
Here, involuntarily comes to mind the well-known phrase from the famous verses of the greatest
Georgian poet of the 20th century Galaktion Tabidze: “The wind is not seen, the wind is not seen … yet
the wind touches the peaks!” (Tabidze 1989: 181).
Ibsen is undisputably one of the best-known names in European literature from the end of the
nineteenth century, and even though there are, of course, different appreciations of his oeuvre, his role in
world literature (Weltliteratur) is on the whole clarified. As far as Vazha-Pshavela is concerned, his
creative works represent one of the most unique phenomena in Georgian literature. A number of scholars
and literary critics have attempted to define the significance of this phenomenon. However, no consensus
has so far been reached on how to define the place of this great writer in the history of Georgian literature.
Vazha Pshavela’s literary works as well as Ibsen’s creative writings often appear at the crossing line of
different cultural and literary tendencies. This fact has not been duly paid attention to in Georgian literary
criticism of the Soviet period, which tried to present Vazha-Pshavela as a uniquely realist writer. Even in
this respect, in order to define Vazha-Pshavela’s place in the context of Georgian and world literature
(Weltliteratur), it is greatly important to relate his oeuvre to Ibsen’s in a comparative perspective.
 Kakhaber Loria 245

The writings of Vazha-Pshavela that we have discussed here in relation to Ibsen’s work are
acknowledged and appreciated in Georgia and worldwide. They are not based on the idea of “art for the
people” in the conventional meaning of the concept, but predominantly on the principles of aestheticism
and elitism. Vazha-Pshavela's best writings possess a unique and self-sufficient quality, having no
external purpose. They are free from the literary utilitarianism that was widespread in Georgia in the
second half of the nineteenth century. The important part of Vazha-Pshavela's writings responds and
chronologically relates to the aesthetics and works of Western writers of his time. In order to adequately
understand this connection, Ibsen and his tragedy of the exceptional individual are highly significant.

References

1. Abashidze, Kita (1955). Vazha-Pshavela [Essay 1 & 2], in: Vazha-Pshavela in Georgian criticism: A Text
Book. Tbilisi: The scientific-methodic cabinet’s publishing house (in Georgian).
2. Andersen, Per Thomas (2012). Norsk litteraturhistorie. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
3. Beyer, Harald & Edvard Beyer (1996). Norsk litteraturhistorie. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.
4. Gamsakhurdia, Konstantine (1963), Henrik Ibsen, in: Selected Works in 8 vols., vol. 6. Tbilisi: Soviet Georgia
(in Georgian).
5. Gatserelia, Akaki (1974), Vazha-Pshavela, in: The History of Georgian Literature in 6 vols., vol. 4. Tbilisi:
Soviet Georgia (In Georgian).
6. Hemmer, Bjørn (2003). Ibsen : kunstnerens vei. Bergen-Oslo : Vigmostad/Bjørke (Ibsen-museene i Norge).
7. Ibsen, Henrik. Plays. http://ibsen.uio.no/skuespill.xhtml
8. Kveselava, Mikheil (1961). Faustian Paradigms, part 2. Tbilisi: Soviet Georgia (In Georgian).
9. M. Ad-Li (pseudonym for Mikheil Javakhishvili) (1906), Henrik Ibseni, in: iveria (Iberia). No. 12, pp. 5–8
(in Georgian).
10. Tabidze, Galaktion (1989). Selected works. Tbilisi: Ganatleba (in Georgian).
11. Tabidze, Titsian (2003). Vazha-Pshavela, in: Georgian authors on Vazha-Pshavela. Tbilisi: TSU
(in Georgian).
12. Vazha-Pshavela (1953). Selected works in one vol. Tbilisi: Sakhelgami (in Georgian).
13. Tveterås, Alf, Per Vogth Hanssen & Hans Olaf Nøklestad (1981). Fra saga til samtid. Oslo : Fabritius
Forlagshus.