is to insist that there is nothing in the play which has no meaning
on the natural-psychological plane, and absolutely requires a symbolic
interpretation to make it comprehensible. The symbols are harmonic
undertones; the psychological melody is clear and consistent without
any reference to them.(4) It is true that, in order to accept the
action on what we may call the realistic level, we must suppose
Solness to possess and to exercise, sometimes unconsciously, a
considerable measure of hypnotic power. But time is surely past
when we could reckon hypnotism among "supernatural" phenomena.
Whether the particular forms of hypnotic influence attributed to
Solness do actually exist is a question we need not determine. The
poet does not demand our absolute credence, as though he were giving
evidence in the witness-box. What he requires is our imaginative
acceptance of certain incidents which he purposely leaves hovering on
the border between the natural and the preternatural, the explained
and the unexplained. In this play, as in _The Lady from the Sea_ and
_Little Eyolf_, he shows a delicacy of art in his dalliance with the
occult which irresistibly recalls the exquisite genius of Nathaniel
Hawthorne.(5)

The critics who insist on finding nothing but symbolism in the play
have fastened on Mrs. Solness's "nine lovely dolls," and provided the
most amazing interpretations for them. A letter which I contributed
in 1893 to the _Westminster Gazette_ records an incident which throws
a curious light on the subject and may be worth preserving. "At a
recent first night," I wrote, "I happened to be seated just behind a
well-known critic. He turned round to me and said, 'I want you to
tell me what is YOUR theory of those "nine lovely dolls." Of course
one can see that they are entirely symbolical.' 'I am not so sure
of that,' I replied, remembering a Norwegian cousin of my own who