The League of Youth

by Henrik Ibsen, William Archer (Translator)

"The League of Youth" is Henrik Ibsen's comedic play which is the story of Stensgaard, a charismatic would-be politician, who forms the 'League of Youth' party and attempts to get elected. The character of Stensgaard is supposedly based on writer Bjornstjerne Bjornson, a contemporary of Ibsen and political opposition leader. Praised for its witty dialogue and cynical humor, "The League of Youth" was one of Ibsen's most popular 19th century plays.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, 19th Century, Satire, Scandinavian Literature

215 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1869

About the author

Henrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.

His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.

Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.

Reviews

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had not heard of this five-act play by Ibsen before, so I assumed it was one of his minor efforts, though a little research shows that's not exactly true--it might be better to say that many of his other works have eclipsed it over the years. According to that know-it-all Wikipedia, The League of Youth was considered one of his most popular plays at the time it was written. It was also a change for Ibsen. From the introduction of the anthology I have: [It was] "Ibsen's first venture into realism and the first time he exercised his gift for perfectly natural and arresting dialogue."

I thought it was entertaining. You could transpose it to a modern stage with very little change, if any. A young, ambitious man named Stensgard has arrived at a small community that is in a transitional period between the forces of capitalism and business, and those of the older aristocratic families. Stensgard uses his ability to stir up a crowd to quickly insert himself at the head of The League of Youth, a group dedicated to stripping power away from those who have it, and giving it to those who don't. The local nobleman (called the Chamberlain), hears part of Stensgard's speech and misinterprets the target, and, believing they are on the same side, invites the young man to his home. There, Stensgard becomes enamored with the trappings of refinement, and turns his back on his former comrades completely.

For the rest of the play, Stensgard bounces between one party or another, making use of every opportunity he can that he thinks will move him closer to his goal, and even changing goals if he believes it will bring him closer to the wealth and comfort he believes he deserves. The satire seems familiar--evidently very familiar to those close to Ibsen, who took the character of Stensgard to be based on Ibsen's former friend, Bjõrnstjerne Bjõrnson. But I don't think anyone needs to be overly familiar with 1870 Norway to recognize the type: opportunism then looks a lot like opportunism now.

This is a humorous play, mostly based on a comedy of errors and the broadly satirical characters. I wasn't really expecting humor from Ibsen--if I could chose a word I would most associate with Ibsen, it would probably be bleak. But it is also that bleakness that seems to give him much of his power, which is probably why he's better known today for plays like Hedda Gabbler and A Doll's House. A League of Youth was entertaining, but not the kind that sticks with you and makes you think, so only three stars for a play that is pleasantly humorous.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

A parody of populist politicans
29 January 2015

I can't say that I am all that familiar with the plays of Ibsen, having only ever read A Doll's House and Peer Gynt and since he was such a prolific writer I am sure there are always going to be ones that I will never get around to reading (if I ever read more than the one's in the collection that I have in the book I am reading, which amount to three, one of them being 'A Doll's House'). Anyway, this is one of his earlier plays, though it is difficult to compare with any of the others due to the limited number to which I have been exposed.
League of Youth is a political comedy about a how a lawyer, Stensgard, seeks to get elected to the Norwegian Parliament and challenge the corrupt conservative rule through a new party called 'The League of Youth'. However, as he gets elected to a local council he finds himself courted by the conservatives and encourage to take of the spoils of office and leave his original ideals behind (that is if he ever had any). However, he is eventually caught out, especially when it is discovered that not only has he proposed to no less than three women, but has also been turned down by each of them.
In a way it has a very cynical view of the political system, suggesting that those who seek to change the way the system works, that is by attacking the entrenched oligarchy and forming a party that seeks to support the people as opposed to the monied interests, will eventually succumb to the corruption and cronyism of office. It is interesting to compare the plot within this play to many of the populists that have arisen in recent years, such as Obama in the United States and Kevin Rudd here in Australia. Both leaders were elected on a popular platform, reaching out to the ordinary people to give them a belief that there is a way out, yet in the end both leaders appear to have come out as great disappointments, Kevin Rudd being dumped by his party and Obama seeming to be forever drifting lower in the polls.
Yet I have at times ventured into to political groups similar to this 'League of Youth', generally made up of young university students (or recent graduates) who seek to stand up to and challenge the entrenched positions, yet I have also heard people attack these groups claiming that since becoming a political influence they have been corrupted by power. The Greens here in Australia are a classic example, with groups further to the left claiming that they have sold out their original ideas and succumbed to the cronyism of the major parties. It would be interesting to see how Alex Tsipras and his SYRIZA party, recently elected as the government of Greece as of this writing, carry out their promises.
However, what many of us don't understand is that change generally does not happen overnight and do not fully understand the power of some of these entrenched interests. People complain how Obama has failed them, and to many it is the case that his campaign struck such a chord in people's hopes, that when they realised that not only was this change going to be incredibly slow, but also misunderstanding the opposition that he was facing, they felt let down. Yet the Wall Street interests in the United States run deep, and the right wing ideology is so strong that not only is it difficult to change the way the government is heading, it is just as difficult to challenge in entrenched belief that a user pays systems works (or rather the idea that if one doesn't use a service then one shouldn't pay for that service because by doing so only encourages freeloading). Mind you, Tony Abbott is finding it just as hard here in Australia to force through his own version of a user pays system when the population not only appreciate it, but openly support it (particularly since Australians appreciate our universal healthcare on the grounds that even though we might not need it now, we will need it in the future, and do not have a problem contributing to it).
However, while a comedy, The League of Youth is also incredibly cynical, suggesting that populists are only ever in it for themselves. In a way that is partly true because there are politicians out there that take the populists approach (such as Tony Abbott), and tap the feelings of the electorate simply to get elected, and once they are they remove the veil in front of their policies that had been hidden throughout the campaign to reveal where they truly stand. While some people argue that the voters tend to be smarter than that, sometimes, when it comes down to two parties, many of them, disenchanted with the current government, select what they believe to be the lesser of two evils only to discover that they are actually the greater. Obviously in Ibsen's play, Stensgard gets caught out before he can do any damage.

[Sheelalipi Sahana · Rating 5 out of 5]

I trusted Ibsen enough to pick this political comedy up (rare for me) and boy was I delighted!

This play is witty not only in terms of plot progression and character development but also by the manner in which human folly is represented. Ibsen allows the readers figure out the the potholes and tread lightly.

Even though I have limited knowledge of 19th century Norwegian slang, I got a few laughs and smirks in.

Will definitely be picking up more of his political plays!

[Darinda · Rating 3 out of 5]

A play. Witty and enjoyable.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was one of Ibsen's earlier plays and in it one might see a bridge between his earlier verse plays and his later works. In many ways Ibsen was, in this work, still constrained by the standards set by his predecessors. Structurally the play contained five acts and the plot unfolded in a comedic way, not all too dissimilar from the comedies of say Molière or Shakespeare. There was even one brief aside and some passages of dialogue that could have very well been spoken as asides by the actors, though they were not written as such, though Ibsen, later on, would move away from these theatrical conventions.

The play contained in it an interesting plot about politics and personal gain, but, as with his (much) later play John Gabriel Borkman, it was heavily plotted and a bit difficult to keep track of what was going on at times. There were some essential truths in this play -- ones that Ibsen would explore later throughout his career -- about things such as deception and egoism, youth versus old age, and so on, but these were not really so fully developed as we find in later works. It is not a "bad" play by any means, but it is weaker in comparison to the giants found in Ibsen's oeuvre.

In addition to the fact that this was Ibsen's first major prose play, it is also largely because of the themes that make this play a bridge between early Ibsen and later Ibsen, themes that were not so refined here as we would later find, but ones that Ibsen would deal with repeatedly and much more skillfully in his later works, pertaining to things such as "life-lies" and duty. But no passage struck my attention so much as the following monologue from Selma, next to which I wrote in the margin of my book "Nora?", for the passage so called to my mind Nora from A Doll's House:

How I have thirsted for a single drop of your troubles, your anxieties! But when I begged for it you only laughed me off. You have dressed me up like a doll; you have played with me as you would play with a child. . . .

I said in a review of a different Ibsen play -- Borkman I believe -- that artists often deal over and again with the same themes and that this is particularly obvious when reading Ibsen, who has a very distinct style and tone. This is ever so evident in The League of Youth. Structurally it is not so much what we have come to think of when we think of Ibsen, more bound by the preexisting traditions of the theatre, but thematically it very much has Ibsen's thumbprints all over it. It is not a play that I would readily recommend, though I do think it provides a good link between early Ibsen (from what I have read of his earlier works -- some say it is very similar to Peer Gynt, which preceded it and which I have not yet read) and later Ibsen. There is nothing extraordinary about it, but it is interesting to read for purposes of comparison. It bears the mark of a good artist, but one who was still perfecting his craft.

[Sindre Arder · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jeg hadde nesten glemt at jeg var i gang med denne. Det var faktisk det at den lå her på Goodreads at jeg ble påminnet at jeg ennå ikke var ferdig med «De unges forbund».
Derfor måtte jeg lese meg litt opp igjen, slik at jeg kom inn i det hele. Det gikk vel sånn høvelig greit - og den ble ikke mer engasjerende av den grunn…

Det er kanskje litt urettferdig å gi den to stjerner når jeg har forkludret fremdriften med lesingen av denne, men likevel velger jeg å gi den disse snaue to stjernene her inne på Goodreads.

Dette er etter min mening en av de svakere av Ibsen. Jeg blir ikke truffet av den satiren som åpenbart ligger i teksten - da det handler om politikk, maktens menn, kvinner om loves bort hit og dit - fra den ene mann til den andre, de nye og unge stemmene i samfunnet og kampen om oppslutning i folkemeningen. Joda, tematikkene finnes der - klart og tydelig. Men det treffer ikke. Hos meg, i alle fall. Teksten tenderer til utdatert og rett og slett litt … ja … kjedelig. Jeg ser humoren, men jeg ler ikke. Da blir den - for meg - svak.

I dette tilfellet kunne jeg heller ønsket meg å oppleve denne tolket på en teaterscene. Da ville jeg muligens fått en ny mening om tekstens potensial i samtiden. Men inntil en slik mulighet står «De unges forbund» for meg som en av Ibsens mindre saftige skuespill.

Les og bedøm selv. Jeg har sagt mitt.

(Obs! Jeg var ikke sur da jeg skrev den siste linja der - ville bare avslutte med litt futt. Ciao!)

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it would have been helpful to know more about Norwegian society, customs, etc. There were a lot of moving parts to this play, some of which I’m sure escaped me. The marriage proposal merry-go-round at the end of the play might have been an attempt to interject a little humor…I’m not sure. “And then he has the luck to be UNHAMPERED by either character, or conviction, or social position; so that Liberalism is the easiest thing in the world to him”. Ha!

[Henrik · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mellom å skrive de to episke stykkene Peer Gynt og Keiser og Galieer ga Ibsen og ut dette (i mine øyne) middelmådige stykket. En datert komedie om misforståelser, ambisjoner, politikk og litt kjærlighet. Sikkert en schlager på Ibsens tid, men nu slår det meg som noe som kunne gått på TV3.

[Harun Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5

[Perry Whitford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mid-19th century political satire from Ibsen, written just before his most enduring plays.

Stensgard is a young lawyer and orator newly arrived at a conservative town somewhere in southern Norway. He whips up a frenzy of idealism at a local fete celebrating the Norwegian Independence Day, which brings him to the attention of the town's elite.

It soon becomes clear that Stensgard is ruthlessly ambitious, not so much an idealistic firebrand as a shameless social climber. Ibsen's cynical take on the shallowness of youthful Liberalism is neatly summarized in this exchange between the town's leading patrician, The Chamberlain, and a wealthy farmer, Lundestad:

The Chamberlain: Why, aren't we all Liberals?
Lundestad: Yes, of course we're Liberals, Chamberlain; not a doubt of it. But the thing is we're Liberal only on out own behalf ...

Stensgard soon starts to suck up to the Chamberlain and just about any one else who can further his plans, using, and in turn being used by, amongst others a local journalist called Aslaksen (who knows "the local situation") and a landowner and politician named Monsen.

Ibsen has some serious and still relevant points to make about political cronyism and the fickle nature of idealism, but after Act 1 events swiftly degenerate into a broad farce, ultimately hindered by some frenetically over contrived plotting towards the end.

Of course it's always difficult to accurately rate a play, which is meant to be seen rather than read. The least successful scene, where Stensgard becomes engaged to just about every woman in the cast, could actually work very well if cleverly staged.

Also, it's hardly a reflection on the success or otherwise of Ibsen's efforts here that I came to it expecting a drama and instead found a comedy.

[Namitha Varma · Rating 4 out of 5]

A political satire, a comedy of errors and misunderstandings, a man's ambition carried too far...

[Steve R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contains spoilers.

My third Ibsen play in my current re-reading of his works, and not only the first in prose but also the first in which he seems to have hit his social-commentary stride. The main character, Stensgard, is a young politician who founds the organization of the title to help improve 'our local conditions' and present an alternative to the aristocratic old guard, personified by the Chamberlain Mr. Brattsberg. This central conflict is fleshed out with a series of secondary characters - an improvident son, an alcoholic newspaperman, a semi-sleazy businessman, a girl whose character exudes 'depths in that quiet integrity of hers', a neglected wife who decides to leave her husband, a widowed inn-keeper and a loyal subaltern of Brattsberg.

Stensgard's initial hostility to Brattsberg is accounted for by his receiving two 'not at home' receptions when calling upon the Chamberlain. He then makes a fiery speech for reform and founds the League of Youth. When offered an invitation from Brattsberg, who thought he was criticizing Monsen, a rival businessman, Stensgard's attitude makes an abrupt about face, and he manifests pure toadyism to his aristocratic betters.

Indeed, Stensgard tells Fjeldbo, a doctor whom, along with Hejde, seems to be in the play merely as listeners for the diatribes of other, more overtly exaggerated characters, Monsen's wealth is like 'greasy banknotes and beer-stained mortgages', while that of Brattsberg is 'pure shining silver'.
His fawning goes so far as to lead him to dream of winning the hand of Brattsberg's unmarried daughter, Thora. His previous profession of affection for Ragda Monsen is now no more. He argues that 'if you marry that class of people, you find that you've practically married the whole family!'

Later, when he believes that the Brattsberg's to be financially ruined, he becomes interested in the widowed Madam Rundholmen only to find his letter to her get crossed with that of another suitor.
The play is described as a comedy, and these flip-flips of Stensgard are a major element in making one smile at the foibles and the vainglorious self-importance of supposed social reformer

Poor Stensgard thus has three failed romantic aspirations. In the end, the doctor announces his engagement to the Chamberlain's daughter, the widow becomes engaged to the son of the run-away Monsen and Ragda becomes engaged to a Mr. Helle, who only shows up to seemingly complete this complete shut out of all Stensgard's romantic plans. His latest about face in his attitude to the Brattsberg's - this time to again court their favor, results in his being 'shown the door'.

A delightful contrived comedy of manners, in which no one character stands pure and morally untainted, and in which all are subject o Ibsen's critical and merciless analysis of personal hypocrisy.

Very good.

[Moe s. · Rating 3 out of 5]

For clarity, I am reading Peter Watts translation.

To be frank, this was not my favorite play. In terms of my enjoyment, I consider it only a little above my least favorite play, Pygmalion. I figured that Ibsen could never miss after my first reading of “A Doll’s House,” but here we are….

Maybe Political Comedies aren’t my thing, (he says as a Shaw fan), but also maybe this play was a bit too topical in subject. With my post-modern eyes I can wholly understand Stangård’s desire for the finer things. And I can see how this play works as a criticism against both early stage capitalism and bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the ending is just so bleak. What lesson is there for us to learn? That we have better found our place before all options are gone? The folly of youth? Maybe I’ll figure it out one day when I’m not so young….

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favourites of Ibsen. It's one of his earlier works of prose drama and it certainly feels like he's figuring out his style - the play is actually quite Shakespearean in its comedy of errors, amongst other things like its musings on Fate. This is no bad thing, however. There are also a lot of Ibsen trademarks, and themes which he builds upon in later plays: the sins of the father, pernicious paternalism, forgery and deceit, blackmail, a letter as a major plot device. Indeed, near the end of the third act there's an outburst from one of the female characters, Selma, which seems to be the beginnings of Ibsen's later work A Doll's House.

[Michael A. Johnston · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of stuff going on in this one, a bit of suggestive innuendo, lots of political scheming, some buffoonery, some clever planning and lots of nerve! I keep seeing Stensgard compared to Peer Gynt, and he does seem to resemble him, but perhaps is not quite so lucky, having to leave town disgraced at the end. Good fun with the comeuppance, and the way seemingly unlikely allies came together to defeat a common foe, but the plot gets quite convoluted towards the middle of the play. I'd rate it a 4- for that.

[Dane Cobain · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was pretty fascinating if only because it does a great job of holding a mirror up to the way that we interact with other people. It also helps that this was written over 100 years ago, and so it’s all a little different to the way that things work today.

Ibsen is a cracking writer, and I was impressed by both his plotting and his characterisation here, especially because that can be tricky to get right in a stage play. I also enjoyed reading all of the notes, which provided me with some extra context.

[Trine Hegre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ett litt mindre engasjerende stykke for min del. Replikkene som er fylt med humor og sarkasme bidrar derimot til å øke underholdningsnivået. Stykket handler om «de lokale forhold», poltikk, makt og pengebegjær. Samtidig som de avholdes heftige debatter foregår det et parallelt kjærlighets-og forlovelsespill med intriger som kvesser opp stemningen.

[Siouxsie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 1/2, almost a 4. Very witty, but I’m not sure about it in play form. It will be interesting to see what theatres pick this up to Stage.

[Ivi · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,4*

[Kasper · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad, but nothing particularly amazing about it. Some witty dialogue, but overall I felt bad for Stensgard more than anything, Fieldbo was a pretty terrible friend.

[Daniel Kjellevold]

Likte dette stykket veldig godt!

[Rufus Goodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished reading this like 2 months ago whoops.

[Cameron England · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had fun the first 4 acts, completely lost in act 5.

[Gracie · Rating 4 out of 5]

delightful! so fun and funny

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

The League of Youth is not exactly a step back in Ibsen's work. For one thing, it is a good deal more fun than most of Ibsen's early writings. It also fits into Ibsen's development as a writer very well. Its charismatic but deceitful hero has been likened to Peer Gynt as a politician. However, the use of colloquial prose and the political concerns of the play prepare the way for Ibsen's 12 great prose plays.

However, if it is not a step back, The League of Youth is a lesser work than most of his output at this time. The comic plot is overly contrived, and this has left the work a little dated. Perhaps more surprisingly, the play was a darling of the conservative classes of the time, an astonishing feat for Ibsen.

The plot is far too complicated to easily summarise. In brief, it concerns a young would-be politician, Stensgaard, who seeks to exploit a liberal, anti-capitalist organisation, The League of Youth, to secure an election victory. Along the way, he strings along three different women, including the daughter of Bratsberg, the ironmaster, a benevolent authority figure.

Stensgaard's plans come to nothing, but we are left with the characters ironically suggesting that they believe that they have not heard the last of him, and that they expect him to one day become a prominent politician.

Set down like this, the play does indeed sound astonishingly conservative for Ibsen. Of course Ibsen was never too firmly aligned with any political movement, and his views veer between liberal and even authoritarian or elitist on occasions. Ibsen was always concerned more about the effects that societies have on the individual, rather than on the rightness of a particular ideology or philosophy.

Even here, Ibsen's portrayal of the two antagonists is more complex. Stensgaard may be a fraud and a cheat, but he has redeeming features too, and we can't help liking him.

Similarly, the conservative Bratsberg has a number of flaws, as seen in his treatment of his son and daughter-in-law. The son seeks freedom from his father, but only gets embroiled and nearly ruined by corruption. His son's wife complains that nobody has ever treated her as a serious member of the family, and that she is treated like a doll. One of Ibsen's contemporaries thought that there was material enough in here for another play. Ibsen clearly thought so too, as he was to write A Doll's House ten years later.

There is a gallery of distinct and interesting supporting characters, reflecting Ibsen's greater confidence as a writer, and he even finds time to stop and offer psychological explanations for Stensgaard's personality.

This may not be a great Ibsen play, but there is much to enjoy in it. However, it lacks the focus to fully bring out any important ideas.

[Marie Østvold · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Vi er de unge. Vi eier tiden; men tiden eier også oss".

Jeg har altså lest skuespillet, og ikke hørt på lydboken, bare så det er sagt. Jeg er meget glad i å lese Ibsen, men enten så er ikke dette hans beste verk, eller så er min lesning preget av å være det jeg kaller 'kollektivtransportlesning'. Med andre ord: noe jeg leser mens jeg tar tog eller buss- og dermed er ikke like konsentrert- som jeg ellers ville ha vært. Jeg synes det ble litt kjedelig i lengden. Mye baksnakking,lureri, og intriger- en såpeopra omtrent. Tematikk er politikk (stemmerett, spesielt interessant er dette med å "skaffe Dem stemmerett"), makt og inflytelse- særlig når det gjelder forholdet mellom lokalbefolkningen og innflyttere, og hvilke personer leder an, hvem som tjener på dette, særlig når det gjelder posisjon og klasse i samfunnslivet (kan man gå så langt å beskrive dette som et kastesamfunn?). Les: avisredaktør Aslaksen, Sakfører Stensgård og Kammerherren (dette tar derfor også opp temaet om ytringsfrihet). Dette er nok et tema som er vel å aktuelt i dag som den gang, vil jeg tro.

Men egentlig, å synes jeg skuespillet var litt kjedelig, så det må nok leses omigjen.

[Dominic · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well written play that I am totally unable to relate to. I mainly read it because I want to read A Doll's House and this happens to be an earlier work of Ibsen's in a set of plays so I'm reading them in order. Much of it is basically political satire from 19th Century Norway, so it really isn't relatable at all. The repeated joke of "our local conditions" would have had contemporary audiences roaring with laughter, but for me it was simply accompanied by a faint whooshing sound as the joke flew right over my head.

There were some amusing bits, and the politicians pretending to believe in something for the soul purpose of furthering themselves is a trope which could still be used easily today (and indeed with "Yes, Prime Minister" and "The Thick of It" you can see this element at work still in modern British political satire.) However there was far too much I didn't get or appreciate to make me consider this an enjoyable play for modern audiences.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first of three Ibsen plays that I read, this was probably the least enjoyable for me. This convoluted tale of political intrigue in scandanavia really just took too long to arrive at the surprise ending, that could easily be seen comming, so that when you reached it, there was no longer any real surprise. Still an interesting read, but if one was to look for an Ibsen play to read, this would not be the first choice.

[E.M. Welsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I'm sure had I studied Ibsen to some extent I might have enjoyed this more, the play bored me to tears. I know Ibsen is known for realistic drama and that's not to say this was written poorly, no, I just wasn't attached to any of the characters. It felt jumbled and it took me over a week to read. Plays should never take me more than a few days to read.

[Varsha Seshan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A light, comical drama about the fickleness of politicians, the ease with which they're willing to change their minds, and the unscrupulousness of ambition. It's as easy to relate to it today as it probably was in the nineteenth century!