addition to the difficulties of translating the language, there are the
difficulties, infinitely greater, of putting into definite words all
that the Norwegian hints at and suggests. It is not high praise to say
that Collin has written the most notable piece of Shakespeare criticism
in Norway; indeed, nothing better has been written either in Norway or
Denmark.
The study of Shakespeare in Norway was not, as the foregoing shows,
extensive or profound, but there were many Norwegian scholars who had
at least considerable information about things Shakespearean. No great
piece of research is to be recorded, but the stimulating criticism of
Caspari, Collin, Just Bing, and Bjørnson is worth reading to this day.
The same comment may be made on two other contributions--Wiesener's
_Almindelig Indledning til Shakespeare_ (General Introduction to
Shakespeare), published as an introduction to his school edition of
_The Merchant of Venice_,[24] and Collin's _Indledning_ to his edition
of the same play. Both are frankly compilations, but both are admirably
organized, admirably written, and full of a personal enthusiasm which
gives the old, sometimes hackneyed facts a new interest.
[24. _Shakespeares The Merchant of Venice. Med Anmærkninger og
Indledning_. Udgivet af G. Wiesener. Kristiania, 1880.]
Wiesener's edition was published in 1880 in Christiania. The text is
that of the Cambridge edition with a few necessary cuttings to adapt it
for school reading. His introduction covers fifty-two closely printed
pages and gives, within these limits, an exceedingly detailed account of
the English drama, the Elizabethan stage, Shakespeare's life and work,
and a careful study of _The Merchant of Venice_ itself. The editor does
not pretend to originality; he has simply tried to bring together well
ascertained facts and to present them in the simplest, clearest fashion
possible. But the _Indledning_ is to-day, thirty-five years after it was
written, fully up to the standard of the best annotated school editions
in this country or in England. It is, of course, a little dry and
schematic; that could hardly be avoided in an attempt to compress such a
vast amount of information into such a small compass, but, for the most
part, the details are so clear and vivid that their mass rather
heightens than blurs the picture.
From the fact that nothing in this introduction is original, it is
hardly necessary to criticise it at length; all that may be demanded
is a short survey of the contents. The whole consists of two great
divisions, a general introduction to Shakespeare and a special
introduction to _The Merchant of Venice_. The first division is, in
turn, subdivided into seven heads: 1. _The Pre-Shakespearean Drama_.
2. _The Life of Shakespeare_. 3. _Shakespeare's Works--Order and
Chronology_. 4. _Shakespeare as a Dramatist_. 5. _Shakespeare's
Versification_. 6. _The Text of Shakespeare_. 7. _The Theatres of
Shakespeare's Time_. This introduction fills thirty-nine pages and
presents an exceedingly useful compendium for the student and the
general reader. The short introduction to the play itself discusses
briefly the texts, the sources, the characters, Shakespeare's relation
to his material and, finally, the meaning of the play. The last section
is, however, a translation from Taine and not Wiesener's at all.
The text itself is provided with elaborate notes of the usual text-book
sort. In addition to these there is, at the back, an admirable series
of notes on the language of Shakespeare. Wiesener explains in simple,
compact fashion some of the differences between Elizabethan and modern
English and traces these phenomena back to their origins in Anglo-Saxon
and Middle English. Inadequate as they are, these linguistic notes
cannot be too highly praised for the conviction of which they bear
evidence--that a complete knowledge of Shakespeare without a knowledge
of his language is impossible. To the student of that day these notes
must have been a revelation.
The second text edition of a Shakespearean play in Norway was Collin's
_The Merchant of Venice_.[25] His introduction covers much the same
ground as Wiesener's, but he offers no sketch of the Elizabethan drama,
of Shakespeare's life, or of his development as a dramatic artist. On
the other hand, his critical analysis of the play is fuller and, instead
of a mere summary, he gives an elaborate exposition of Shakespeare's
versification.
[25. _The Merchant of Venice_. Med Indledning og Anmærkninger ved
Chr. Collin. Kristiania. 1902.]
Collin is a critic of rare insight. Accordingly, although he says
nothing new in his discussion of the purport and content of the play,
he makes the old story live anew. He images Shakespeare in the midst of
his materials--how he found them, how he gave them life and being. The
section on Shakespeare's language is not so solid and scientific as
Wiesener's, but his discussion of Shakespeare's versification is
both longer and more valuable than Wiesener's fragmentary essay, and
Shakespeare's relation to his sources is treated much more suggestively.
He points out, first of all, that in Shakespeare's "classical" plays the
characters of high rank commonly use verse and those of low rank, prose.
This is, however, not a law. The real principle of the interchange of
prose and verse is in the emotions to be conveyed. Where these are
tense, passionate, exalted, they are communicated in verse; where they
are ordinary, commonplace, they are expressed in prose. This rule will
hold both for characters of high station and for the most humble. In Act
I, for example, Portia speaks in prose to her maid "obviously because
Shakespeare would lower the pitch and reduce the suspense. In the
following scene, the conversation between Shylock and Bassanio begins in
prose. But as soon as Antonio appears, Shylock's emotions are roused to
their highest pitch, and his speech turns naturally to verse--even
though he is alone and his speech an aside. A storm of passions sets
his mind and speech in rhythmic motion. And from that point on, the
conversations of Shylock, Bassanio, and Antonio are in verse. In short,
rhythmic speech when there is a transition to strong, more dramatic
feeling."
The use of prose or verse depends, then, on the kind and depth of
feeling rather than on the characters. "In Act II Launcelot Gobbo and
his father are the only ones who employ prose. All the others speak in
verse--even the servant who tells of Bassanio's arrival. Not only that,
but he speaks in splendid verse even though he is merely announcing a
messenger:"
"Yet have I not seen
So likely an ambassador of love," etc.
Again, in _Lear_, the servant who protests against Cornwall's cruelty to
Gloster, nameless though he is, speaks in noble and stately lines:
Hold your hand, my lord;
I've served you ever since I was a child;
But better service have I never done you
Than now to bid you hold.
When the dramatic feeling warrants it, the humblest rise to the highest
poetry. The renaissance was an age of deeper, mightier feelings than
our own, and this intense life speaks in verse, for only thus can it
adequately express itself.
All this is romantic enough. But it is to be doubted if the men of the
renaissance were so different from us that they felt an instinctive need
of bursting into song. The causes of the efflorescence of Elizabethan
dramatic poetry are not, I think, to be sought in such subtleties as
these.
Collin further insists that the only way to understand Shakespeare's
versification is to understand his situations and his characters. Rules
avail little. If we do not _feel_ the meaning of the music, we shall
never understand the meaning of the verse. Shakespeare's variations from
the normal blank verse are to be interpreted from this point of view.
Hence what the metricists call "irregularities" are not irregularities
at all. Collin examines the more important of these irregularities and
tries to account for them.
1. Short broken lines as in I, 1-5: _I am to learn._ Antonio completes
this line by a shrug of the shoulders or a gesture. "It would be
remarkable," concludes Collin, "if there were no interruptions or pauses
even though the characters speak in verse." Another example of this
breaking of the line for dramatic purposes is found in I, 3-123 where
Shylock suddenly stops after "say this" as if to draw breath and arrange
his features. (Sic!)
2. A verse may be abnormally long and contain six feet. This is
frequently accidental, but in _M of V_ it is used at least once
deliberately--in the oracular inscriptions on the caskets:
"Who chooseth me shall gain what men desire."
"Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves."
"Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he has."
Collin explains that putting these formulas into Alexandrines gives them
a stiffness and formality appropriate to their purpose.
3. Frequently one or two light syllables are added to the close of the
verse:
Sit like his grandsire cut in alabaster.
or
Sleep when he wakes and creep into the jaundice.
Again, in III, 2-214 we have two unstressed syllables:
But who comes here? Lorenzo and his infidel?
"Shakespeare uses this unaccented gliding ending more in his later works
to give an easier more unconstrained movement."
4. Occasionally a syllable is lacking, and the foot seems to halt as in
V, 1-17:
As far as Belmont. In such a night, etc.
Here a syllable is lacking in the third foot. But artistically this is
no defect. We cannot ask that Jessica and Lorenzo always have the right
word at hand. The defective line simply means a pause and, therefore,
instead of being a blemish, is exactly right.
5. On the other hand, there is often an extra light syllable before the
caesura. (I, 1-48):
Because you are not merry; and 'twere as easy, etc.
This extra syllable before the pause gives the effect of a slight
retardation. It was another device to make the verse easy and
unconstrained.
6. Though the prevailing verse is iambic pentameter, we rarely find
more than three or four real accents. The iambic movement is constantly
broken and compelled to fight its way through. This gives an added
delight, since the ear, attuned to the iambic beat, readily recognizes
it when it recurs. The presence of a trochee is no blemish, but a
relief:
Vailing her high tops higher than her ribs. (I, 1-28)
This inverted stress occurs frequently in Norwegian poetry. Wergeland
was a master of it and used it with great effect, for instance, in his
poem to Ludvig Daa beginning:
Med døden i mit hjerte,
og smilet om min mund,--
All this gives to Shakespeare's verse a marvellous flexibility and
power. Nor are these devices all that the poet had at his disposal. We
frequently find three syllables to the foot, giving the line a certain
fluidity which a translator only rarely can reproduce. Finally, a
further difficulty in translating Shakespeare lies in the richness of
the English language in words of one syllable. What literature can rival
the grace and smoothness of:
In sooth I know not why I am so sad.
Ten monosyllables in succession! It is enough to drive a translator to
despair. Or take:
To be or not to be, that is the question.
To summarize, no other language can rival English in dramatic dialogue
in verse, and this is notably true of Shakespeare's English, where the
word order is frequently simpler and more elastic than it is in modern
English.
Two reviews of Collin quickly appeared in a pedagogical magazine, _Den
Höiere Skole_. The first of them,[26] by Ivar Alnæs, is a brief, rather
perfunctory review. He points out that _The Merchant of Venice_ is
especially adapted to reading in the gymnasium, for it is unified in
structure, the characters are clearly presented, the language is not
difficult, and the picture is worth while historically. Collin has,
therefore, done a great service in making the play available for
teaching purposes. Alnæs warmly praises the introduction; it is
clear, full, interesting, and marked throughout by a tone of genuine
appreciation. But right here lies its weakness. It is not always easy
to distinguish ascertained facts from Collin's imaginative combinations.
Every page, however, gives evidence of the editor's endeavor to give to
the student fresh, stimulating impressions, and new, revealing points of
view. This is a great merit and throws a cloak over many eccentricities
of language.
[26. Vol. 5 (1903), pp. 51 ff.]
But Collin was not to escape so easily. In the same volume Dr.
August Western[27] wrote a severe criticism of Collin's treatment
of Shakespeare's versification.
[27. _Ibid._ pp. 142 ff.]
He agrees, as a matter of course, that Shakespeare is a master of
versification, but he does not believe that Collin has proved it. That
blank verse is the natural speech of the chief characters or of the
minor characters under emotional stress, that prose is _usually_ used by
minor characters or by important characters under no emotional strain
is, in Dr. Western's opinion, all wrong. Nor is prose per se more
restful than poetry. And is not Shylock more emotional in his scene
(I, 3) than any of the characters in the casket scene immediately
following (II, 1)? According to Collin, then, I, 3 should be in verse
and II, 1 in prose! Equally absurd is the theory that Shakespeare's
characters speak in verse because their natures demand it. Does Shylock
go contrary to nature in III, 1? There is no psychological reason for
Verse in Shakespeare. He wrote as he did because convention prescribed
it. The same is true of Goethe and Schiller, of Bjørnson and Ibsen in
their earlier plays. Shakespeare's lapses into prose are, moreover, easy
to explain. There must always be something to amuse the gallery. Act
III, 1 must be so understood, for though Shakespeare was undoubtedly
moved, the effect of the scene was comic. The same is true of the
dialogue between Portia and Nerissa in Act I, and of all the scenes
in which Launcelot Gobbo appears.
Western admits, however, that much of the prose in Shakespeare cannot
be so explained; for example, the opening scenes in _Lear_ and _The
Tempest_. And this brings up another point, i.e., Collin's supposition
that Shakespeare's texts as we have them are exactly as he wrote them.
When the line halts, Collin simply finds proof of the poet's fine ear!
The truth probably is that Shakespeare had a good ear and that he always
wrote good lines, but that he took no pains to see that these lines were
correctly printed. Take, for example, such a line as:
As far as Belmont.
In such a night
This would, if written by anyone else, always be considered bad, and Dr.
Western does not believe that Collin's theory of the pauses will hold.
The pause plays no part in verse. A line consists of a fixed number
of _heard_ syllables. Collin would say that a line like I, 1-73:
I will not fail you,
is filled out with a bow and a swinging of the hat. Then why are the
lines just before it, in which Salarino and Salario take leave of each
other, not defective? Indeed, how can we be sure that much of what
passes for "Shakespeare's versification" is not based on printers'
errors? In the folio of 1623 there are long passages printed in prose
which, after closer study, we must believe were written in verse--the
opening of _Lear_ and _The Tempest_. Often, too, it is plain that
the beginnings and endings of lines have been run together. Take the
passage:
_Sal_:
Why, then you are in love.
_Ant_:
Fie, fie!
_Sal_:
Not in love neither? Then let us say you are sad--
The first line is one foot short, the second one foot too long. This
Collin would call a stroke of genius; each _fie_ is a complete foot,
and the line is complete! But what if the line were printed thus:
_Sal_:
Why, then you are in love.
_Ant_:
Fie, fie!
_Sal_:
Not in
Love neither? Then let us say you are sad.
or possibly:
Love neither? Then let's say that you are sad.
Another possible printer's error is found in I, 3-116:
With bated breath and whispering humbleness
Say this;
Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last.
Are we here to imagine a pause of four feet? And what are we to do with
the first folio which has
Say this; Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last.
all in one line? Perhaps some printer chose between the two. At any
rate, Collin's theory will not hold. In the schools, of course, one
cannot be a text critic but, on the other hand, one must not praise in
Shakespeare what may be the tricks of the printer's devil. The text is
not always faultless.
Finally, Dr. Western objects to the statement that the difficulty in
translating Shakespeare lies in the great number of monosyllables and
gives
In sooth, I know not why I am so sad
as proof. Ten monosyllables in one line! But this is not impossible in
Norwegian:
For sand, jeg ved ei, hvi jeg er saa trist--
It is not easy to translate Shakespeare, but the difficulty goes deeper
than his richness in words of one syllable.
With the greater part of Dr. Western's article everyone will agree. It
is doubtful if any case could be made out for the division of prose and
verse based on psychology. Shakespeare probably wrote his plays in verse
for the same reason that Goethe and Schiller and Oehlenschläger did. It
was the fashion. And how difficult it is to break with fashion or with
old tradition, the history of Ibsen's transition from poetry to prose
shows. It is equally certain that in Collin's _Introduction_ it is
difficult to distinguish ascertained facts from brilliant speculation.
But it is not easy to agree with Dr. Western that Collin's explanation
of the "pause" is a tissue of fancy.
In the first place, no one denies that the printers have at times
played havoc with Shakespeare's text. Van Dam and Stoffel, to whose book
Western refers and whose suggestions are directly responsible for this
article, have shown this clearly enough. But when Dr. Western argues
that because printers have corrupted the text in some places, they must
be held accountable for every defective short line, we answer, it does
not follow. In the second place, why should not a pause play a part in
prosody as well as in music? Recall Tennyson's verse:
Break, break, break,
On thy cold, grey stones, o sea!
where no one feels that the first line is defective. Of course the
answer is that in Tennyson no accented syllable is lacking. But it is
difficult to understand what difference this makes. When the reader has
finished pronouncing _Belmont_ there _must_ be a moment's hesitation
before Lorenzo breaks in with:
In such a night
and this pause may have metrical value. The only judge of verse, after
all, is the hearer, and, in my opinion, Collin is right when he points
out the value of the slight metrical pause between the bits of repartee.
Whether Shakespeare counted the syllables beforehand or not, is another
matter. In the third place, Collin did not quote in support of his
theory the preposterous lines which Dr. Western uses against him. Collin
does quote I, 1-5:
I am to learn.
and I, 1-73:
I will not fail you
is a close parallel, but Collin probably would not insist that his
theory accounts for every case. As to Dr. Western's other example of
good meter spoiled by corrupt texts, Collin would, no doubt, admit
the possibility of the proposed emendations. It would not alter his
contention that a pause in the line, like a pause in music, is not
necessarily void, but may be very significant indeed.
The array of Shakespearean critics in Norway, as we said at the
beginning, is not imposing. Nor are their contributions important.
But they show, at least, a sound acquaintance with Shakespeare and
Shakespeareana, and some of them, like the articles of Just Bing,
Brettville Jensen, Christen Collin, and August Western, are interesting
and illuminating. Bjørnson's article in _Aftenbladet_ is not merely
suggestive as Shakespearean criticism, but it throws valuable light
on Bjørnson himself and his literary development. When we come to the
dramatic criticism of Shakespeare's plays, we shall find renewed
evidence of a wide and intelligent knowledge of Shakespeare in Norway.
CHAPTER III
Performances Of Shakespeare's Plays In Norway
_Christiania_
The first public theater in Christiania was opened by the Swedish
actor, Johan Peter Strömberg, on January 30, 1827, but no Shakespeare
production was put on during his short and troubled administration.
Not quite two years later this strictly private undertaking became a
semi-public one under the immediate direction of J.K. Böcher, and at
the close of the season 1829-30, Böcher gave by way of epilogue to
the year, two performances including scenes from Holberg's _Melampe_,
Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, and Oehlenschläger's _Aladdin_. The Danish actor
Berg played Hamlet, but we have no further details of the performance.
We may be sure, however, that of the two translations available, Boye's
and Foersom's, the latter was used. _Hamlet_, or a part of it, was thus
given for the first time in Norway nearly seventeen years after Foersom
himself had brought it upon the stage in Denmark.[1]
[1. Blanc: _Christianias Theaters Historie_, p. 51.]
More than fourteen years were to elapse before the theater took
up Shakespeare in earnest. On July 28, 1844, the first complete
Shakespearean play was given. This was _Macbeth_ in Foersom's version
of Schiller's "bearbeitung," which we shall take up in our studies of
Shakespeare in Denmark.[2] No reviews of it are to be found in the
newspapers of the time, not even an announcement. This, however, does
not prove that the event was unnoticed, for the press of that day was
a naive one. Extensive reviews were unknown; the most that the public
expected was a notice.
[2. Blanc does not refer to this performance in his _Historie_.
But this and all other data of performances from 1844 to 1899 are
taken from his "Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider, som
siden Kristiania Offentlige Theaters Aabning, den 30. Januar 1827,
har vært opført af dets Personale indtil 15 Juni 1899." The work
is unpublished. Ms 4to, No. 940 in the University Library,
Christiania.]
We are equally ignorant of the fate of _Othello_, performed the next
season, being given for the first time on January 3, 1845. Wulff's
Danish translation was used. Blanc says in his _Historie_[3] that
Desdemona and Iago were highly praised, but that the play as a whole
was greatly beyond the powers of the theater.
[3. See p. 94, note 1.]
Nearly eight years later, November 11, 1852, _Romeo and Juliet_ in
Foersom's translation received its Norwegian premiere. The acting
version used was that made for the Royal Theater in Copenhagen by A.E.
Boye in 1828.[4] _Christiania Posten_[5] reports a packed house and a
tremendous enthusiasm. Romeo (by Wiehe) and Juliet (by Jomfru Svendsen)
revealed careful study and complete understanding. The reviewer in
_Morgenbladet_[6] begins with the little essay on Shakespeare so common
at the time; "Everyone knows with what colors the immortal Shakespeare
depicts human passions. In _Othello_, jealousy; in _Hamlet_, despair;
in _Romeo and Juliet_, love, are sung in tones which penetrate to the
depths of the soul. Against the background of bitter feud, the love of
Romeo and Juliet stands out victorious and beneficent. Even if we cannot
comprehend this passion, we can, at least, feel the ennobling power of
the story." Both of the leading parts are warmly praised. Of Wiehe the
reviewer says: "Der var et Liv af Varme hos ham i fuldt Maal, og den
grændseløse Fortvivlelse blev gjengivet med en næsten forfærdelig
Troskab."
[4. See Aumont og Collin: _Det Danske Nationalteater_. V Afsnit,
pp. 118 ff.]
[5. _Christiania Posten_. November 15, 1845.]
[6. _Morgenbladet_. November 15, 1845.]
The same season (Dec. 11, 1852) the theater also presented _As You
Like It_ in the Danish version by Sille Beyer. The performance of two
Shakespearean plays within a year may rightly be called an ambitious
undertaking for a small theatre without a cent of subsidy. _Christiania
Posten_ says: "It is a real kindness to the public to make it acquainted
with these old masterpieces. One feels refreshed, as though coming
out of a bath, after a plunge into their boundless, pure poetry. The
marvellous thing about this comedy (_As You Like It_) is its wonderful,
spontaneous freshness, and its freedom from all sentimentality and
emotional nonsense." The acting, says the critic, was admirable, but
its high quality must, in a measure, be attributed to the sympathy and
enthusiasm of the audience. Wiehe is praised for his interpretation of
Orlando and Jomfru Svendsen for her Rosalind.[7] Apparently none of the
reviewers noticed that Sille Beyer had turned Shakespeare upside down.
Her version was given for the last time on Sept. 25, 1878, and in this
connection an interesting discussion sprang up in the press.
[7. _Christiania Posten_. Dec. 12, 1852.]
The play was presented by student actors, and the performance
was therefore less finished than it would have been under other
circumstances. _Aftenposten_ was doubtless right when it criticised the
director for entrusting so great a play to unpractised hands, assuming
that Shakespeare should be played at all. "For our part, we do not
believe the time far distant when Shakespeare will cease to be a
regular part of the repertoire."[8] To this statement a contributor in
_Aftenposten_ for Sept. 28 objected. He admits that Shakespeare wrote
his plays for a stage different from our own, that the ease with which
Elizabethan scenery was shifted gave his plays a form that makes them
difficult to play today. Too often at a modern presentation we feel that
we are seeing a succession of scenes rather than unified, organic drama.
But, after all, the main thing is the substance--"the weighty content,
and this will most certainly secure for them for a long time to come a
place in the repertoire of the theater of the Germanic world. So long
as we admit that in the delineation of character, in the presentation
of noble figures, and in the mastery of dialogue, Shakespeare is
unexcelled, so long we must admit that Shakespeare has a place on the
modern stage."
[8. _Aftenposten_. Sept. 21, 1878.]
Where did _Aftenposten_'s reviewer get the idea that Shakespeare's plays
are not adapted to the modern stage? Was it from Charles Lamb? At any
rate, it is certain that he anticipated a movement that has led to many
devices both in the English-speaking countries and in Germany to
reproduce the stage conditions under which Shakespeare's plays were
performed during his own life.
Of the next Shakespearean piece to be performed in Christiania,
_All's Well That Ends Well_, there is but the briefest mention in
the newspapers. We know that it was given in the curiously perverted
arrangement by Sille Beyer and was presented twelve times from January
15, 1854 to May 23, 1869. On that day a new version based on Lembcke's
translation was used, and in this form the play was given eight times
the following seasons. Since January 24, 1882, it has not been performed
in Norway.[9]
[9. See Blanc's _Fortegnelse_. p. 93.]
At the beginning of the next season, October 29, 1854, _Much Ado About
Nothing_ was introduced to Kristiania theater-goers under the title
_Blind Alarm_. The translation was by Carl Borgaard, director of the
theater. But here, too, contemporary documents leave us in the dark.
There is merely a brief announcement in the newspapers. Blanc informs
us that Jomfru Svendsen played Hero, and Wiehe, Benedict.[10]
[10. See Blanc's _Fortegnelse_. p. 93.]
After _Blind Alarm_ Shakespeare disappears from the repertoire for
nearly four years. A version of _The Taming of the Shrew_ under the
title _Hun Maa Tæmmes_ was given on March 28, 1858, but with no great
success. Most of the papers ignored it. _Aftenbladet_ merely announced
that it had been given.[11]
[11. _Aftenbladet_. March 22, 1858.]
_Viola_, Sille Beyer's adaptation of _Twelfth Night_ was presented at
Christiania Theater on November 20, 1860, the eighth of Shakespeare's
plays to be presented in Norway, and again not merely in a Danish text
but in a version made for the Copenhagen Theater.
Neither the critics nor the public were exacting. The press hailed
_Viola_ as a tremendous relief from the frothy stuff with which
theater-goers had been sickened for a season or two. "The theater
finally justified its existence," says _Morgenbladet_,[12] "by a
performance of one of Shakespeare's plays. Viola was beautifully done."
The writer then explains in conventional fashion the meaning of the
English title and goes on--"But since the celebration of _Twelfth Night_
could interest only the English, the Germans have "bearbeidet" the play
and centered the interest around Viola. We have adopted this version."
He approves of Sille Beyer's cutting, though he admits that much is lost
of the breadth and overwhelming romantic fulness that mark the original.
But this he thinks is compensated for by greater intelligibility and the
resulting dramatic effect. "Men hvad Stykket ved saadan Forandring,
Beklippelse, og Udeladelse saaatsige taber af sin Fylde idet ikke alt
det Leende, Sorgløse og Romantiske vandre saa ligeberettiget side om
side igjennem Stykket, mens det Øvrige samler sig om Viola, det opveies
ved den større Forstaaelighed for vort Publikum og denne mere afrundede
sceniske Virkning, Stykket ved Bearbeidelsen har faaet." As the piece is
arranged now, Viola and her brother are not on the stage at the same
time until Act V. Both rôles may therefore be played by Jomfru Svendsen.
The critic is captivated by her acting of the double rôle, and
Jørgensen's Malvolio and Johannes Brun's Sir Andrew Aguecheek share
with her the glory of a thoroughly successful performance.
[12. November 23, 1860.]
Sille Beyer's _Viola_ was given twelve times. From the thirteenth
performance, January 21, 1890, _Twelfth Night_ was given in a new form
based on Lembcke's translation.
A thorough search through the newspaper files fails to reveal even a
slight notice of _The Merchant of Venice_ (Kjøbmanden i Venedig) played
for the first time on Sept. 17, 1861. Rahbek's translation was used, and
this continued to be the standard until 1874, when, beginning with the
eighth performance, it was replaced by Lembcke's.
We come, then, to _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ (Skjærsommernatsdrømmen)
played in Oehlenschläger's translation under Bjørnson's direction on
April 17, 1865. The play was given ten times from that date till
May 27, 1866. In spite of this unusual run it appears to have been only
moderately successful, and when Bjørnson dropped it in the spring of
1866, it was to disappear from the repertoire for thirty-seven years.
On January 15, 1903, it was revived by Bjørnson's son, Bjørn Bjørnson.
This time, however, it was called _Midsommernatsdrömmen_, and the acting
version was based on Lembcke's translation. In this new shape it has
been played twenty-seven times up to January, 1913.
The interesting polemic which Bjørnson's production occasioned has
already been discussed at some length. This may be added, however:
A play which, according to the poet's confession, influenced his life as
this one did, has played an important part in Norwegian literature. The
influence may be intangible. It is none the less real.
More popular than any of the plays which had thus far been presented in
Norway was _A Winter's Tale_, performed at Christiania Theater for the
first time on May 4, 1866. The version used had, however, but a faint
resemblance to the original. It was a Danish revision of Dingelstedt's
_Ein Wintermärchen_. I shall discuss this Holst-Dingelstedt text in
another place. At this point it is enough to say that Shakespeare is
highly diluted. It seems, nevertheless, to have been successful, for
between the date of its premiere and March 21, 1893, when it was given
for the last time, it received fifty-seven performances, easily breaking
all records for Shakespearean plays at the old theater. And at the new
National Theater, where it has never been given, no Shakespearean play,
with the exception of _The Taming of the Shrew_ has approached its
record.
_Aftenbladet_[13] in its preliminary review said: "Although this is
not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth putting on,
especially in the form which Dingelstedt has given to it. It was
received with the greatest enthusiasm." But _Aftenbladet's_ promised
critical review never appeared.
[13. May 5, 1866.]
More interesting and more important than most of the performances
which we have thus far considered is that of _Henry IV_ in 1867, while
Bjørnson was still director. To his desire to give Johannes Brun an
opportunity for the display of his genius in the greatest of comic rôles
we owe this version of the play. Bjørnson obviously could not give both
parts, and he chose to combine cuttings from the two into a single play
with Falstaff as the central figure. The translation used was Lembcke's
and the text was only slightly norvagicized.
Bjørnson's original prompt book is not now available. In 1910, however,
H. Wiers Jensen, a playwright associated with the National Theater,
shortened and slightly adapted the version for a revival of the play,
which had not been seen in Kristiania since February 8, 1885. We may
assume that in all essentials the prompt book of 1910 reproduces that of
1867.
In this _Kong Henrik IV_ the action opens with I Henry IV, II-4, and Act
I consists of this scene freely cut and equally freely handled in the
distribution of speeches. The opening of the scene, for example, is cut
away entirely and replaced by a brief account of the robbery put naively
into the mouth of Poins. The opening of Act II is entirely new. Since
all the historical scenes of Act I of the original have been omitted, it
becomes necessary to give the audience some notion of the background.
This is done in a few lines in which the King tells of the revolt of
the nobles and of his own difficult situation. Then follows the king's
speech from Part I, Act III, Sc. 2:
Lords, give us leave; the prince of Wales and I
must have some conference...
and what follows is the remainder of the scene with many cuttings. Sir
Walter Blunt does not appear. His rôle is taken by Warwick.
Act II, Sc. 2 of Bjørnson's text follows Part I, Act III, Sc. 3 closely.
Act III, Sc. 1 corresponds with Part I, Act III, Sc. 1 to the point
where Lady Mortimer and Lady Percy enter. This episode is cut and the
scene resumes with the entrance of the messenger in Part I, Act IV,
Sc. 1, line 14. This scene is then followed in outline to the end.
Act III, Sc. 2 begins with Part I, Act IV, Sc. 3 from the entrance of
Falstaff, and follows it to the end of the scene. To this is added most
of Scene 4, but there is little left of the original action. Only the
Falstaff episodes are retained intact.
The last act (IV) is a wonderful composite. Scene 1 corresponds closely
to Part II, Act III, Sc. 4, but it is, as usual, severely cut. Scene 2
reverts back to Part II, Act III, Sc. 2 and is based on this scene to
line 246, after which it is free handling of Part II, Act V, Sc. 3.
Scene 3 is based on Part II, Act V, Sc. 5.
A careful reading of Bjørnson's text with the above as a guide will
show that this collection of episodes, chaotic as it seems, makes no
ineffective play. With a genius--and a genius Johannes Brun was--as
Falstaff, one can imagine that the piece went brilliantly. The press
received it favorably, though the reviewers were much too critical to
allow Bjørnson's mangling of the text to go unrebuked.
_Aftenbladet_ has a careful review.[14] The writer admits that in our
day it requires courage and labor to put on one of Shakespeare's
historical plays, for they were written for a stage radically different
from ours. In the Elizabethan times the immense scale of these
"histories" presented no difficulties. On a modern stage the mere
bulk makes a faithful rendition impossible. And the moment one starts
tampering with Shakespeare, trouble begins. No two adapters will agree
as to what or how to cut. Moreover, it may well be questioned whether
any such cutting as that made for the theater here would be tolerated in
any other country with a higher and older Shakespeare "Kultur." The
attempt to fuse the two parts of _Henry IV_ would be impossible in a
country with higher standards. "Our theater can, however, venture
undisturbed to combine these two comprehensive series of scenes into
one which shall not require more time than each one of them singly--a
venture, to be sure, which is not wholly without precedent in foreign
countries. It is clear that the result cannot give an adequate notion of
Shakespeare's 'histories' in all their richness of content, but it does,
perhaps, give to the theater a series of worth-while problems to work
out, the importance of which should not be underestimated. The attempt,
too, has made our theater-goers familiar with Shakespeare's greatest
comic character, apparently to their immense delight. Added to all this
is the fact that the acting was uniformly excellent."
[14. February 18, 1867.]
But by what right is the play called Henry IV? Practically nothing is
left of the historical setting, and the spectator is at a loss to know
just what the whole thing is about. Certainly the whole emphasis is
shifted, for the king, instead of being an important character is
overshadowed by Prince Hal. The Falstaff scenes, on the other hand, are
left almost in their original fulness, and thus constitute a much more
important part of the play than they do in the original. The article
closes with a glowing tribute to Johannes Brun as Falstaff.
_Morgenbladet_[15] goes into greater detail. The reviewer seems to think
that Shakespeare had some deep purpose in dividing the material into two
parts--he wished to have room to develop the character of Prince Henry.
"Accordingly, in the first part he gives us the early stages of Prince
Hal's growth, beginning with the Prince of Wales as a sort of superior
rake and tracing the development of his better qualities. In Part II we
see the complete assertion of his spiritual and intellectual powers."
The writer overlooks the fact that what Shakespeare was writing first of
all--or rather, what he was revising--was a chronicle. If he required
more than five acts to give the history of Henry IV he could use ten and
call it two plays. If, in so doing, he gave admirable characterization,
it was something inherent in his own genius, not in the materials with
which he was working.
[15. February 17, 1867.]
The history, says the reviewer, and the Falstaff scenes are the
background for the study of the Prince, each one serving a distinct
purpose. But here the history has been made meaningless and the Falstaff
episodes have been put in the foreground. He points out that balance,
proportion, and perspective are all lost by this. Yet, granting that
such revolutionizing of a masterpiece is ever allowable, it must be
admitted that Bjørnson has done it with considerable skill. Bjørnson's
purpose is clear enough. He knew that Johannes Brun as Falstaff would
score a triumph, and this success for his theater he was determined to
secure. The same motive was back of the version which Stjernstrøm put on
in Stockholm, and there can be little doubt that his success suggested
the idea to Bjørnson. The nature of the cutting reveals the purpose at
every step. For instance, the scene in which the Gadskill robbery is
made clear, is cut entirely. We thus lose the first glimpse of the
sterner and manlier side of the royal reveller. In fact, if Bjørnson had
been frank he would have called his play _Falstaff--based on certain
scenes from Shakespeare's Henry IV, Parts I and II_.
Yet, though much has been lost, much of what remains is excellent.
Brun's Falstaff almost reconciles us to the sacrifice. Long may he live
and delight us with it! It is one of his most superb creations. The cast
as a whole is warmly praised. It is interesting to note that at the
close of the review the critic suggests that the text be revised with
Hagberg's Swedish translation at hand, for Lembcke's Danish contains
many words unusual or even unfamiliar in Norwegian.
_Henry IV_ remained popular in Norway, although from February 8,
1885 to February 10, 1910 it was not given in Kristiania. When, in 1910,
it was revived with Løvaas as Falstaff, the reception given it by the
press was about what it had been a quarter of a century before.
_Aftenposten_'s[16] comment is characteristic: "The play is turned
upside down. The comic sub-plot with Falstaff as central figure is
brought forward to the exclusion of all the rest. More than this, what
is retained is shamelessly altered." Much more scathing is a short
review by Christian Elster in the magazine _Kringsjaa_.[17] The play,
he declares, has obviously been given to help out the box office by
speculating in the popularity of Falstaff. "There is no unity, no
coherence, no consistency in the delineation of characters, and even
from the comic scenes the spirit has fled."[17]
[16. _Aftenposten_. February 25, 1910.]
[17. _Kringsjaa_ XV, III (1910), p. 173.]
To all this it may be replied that the public was right when it
accepted Falstaff for what he was regardless of the violence done to the
original. The Norwegian public cared little about the wars, little even
about the king and the prince; but people will tell one today of those
glorious evenings when they sat in the theater and revelled in Johannes
Brun as the big, elephantine knight.
In the spring of 1813, Foersom himself brought out _Hamlet_ on the
Danish stage. Nearly sixty years were to pass before this play was put
on in Norway, March 4, 1870.
The press was not lavish in its praise. _Dagbladet_[18] remarks
that though the performance was not what it ought to have been, the
audience followed it from first to last with undivided attention.
_Aftenbladet_[19] has a long and interesting review. Most of it is
given over to a criticism of Isaachson's Hamlet. First of all, says
the reviewer, Isaachson labors under the delusion that every line is
cryptic, embodying a secret. This leads him to forget the volume of the
part and to invent all sorts of fanciful interpretations for details.
Thus he loses the unity of the character. Things are hurried through to
a conclusion and the fine transitions are lost. For example, "Oh, that
this too, too solid flesh would melt" is started well, but the speech at
once gains in clearness and decision until one wonders at the close why
such a Hamlet does not act at once with promptness and vigor. There are,
to be sure, occasional excellences, but they do not conceal the fact
that, as a whole, Isaachson does not understand Hamlet.
[18. March 5, 1870.]
[19. March 8, 1870.]
Since its first performance _Hamlet_ has been given often in
Norway--twenty-eight times at the old Christiania Theater, and (from
October 31, 1907) seventeen times at the new National Theater. Its
revival in 1907, after an intermission of twenty-four years, was a
complete success, although _Morgenbladet_[20] complained that the
performance lacked light and inspiration. The house was full and the
audience appreciative.
[20. November 1, 1907.]
_Aftenposten_[21] found the production admirable. Christensen's Hamlet
was a stroke of genius. "Han er voxet i og med Rollen; han har trængt
sig ind i den danske Prins' dybeste Individualitet." And of the revival
the paper says: "The performance shows that a national theater can solve
difficult problems when the effort is made with sympathy, joy, and
devotion to art."
[21. November 1, 1907.]
In my judgment no theater could have given a better caste for
_The Merry Wives of Windsor_ than that with which Christiania Theater
was provided. All the actors were artists of distinction; and it is
not strange, therefore, that the first performance was a huge success.
_Aftenposten_[22] declares that Brun's Falstaff was a revelation.
_Morgenbladet_[23] says that the play was done only moderately well.
Brun as Falstaff was, however, "especially amusing." _Aftenbladet_[24]
is more generous. "_The Merry Wives of Windsor_ has been awaited with a
good deal of interest. Next to the curiosity about the play itself, the
chief attraction has been Brun as Falstaff. And though Falstaff as lover
gives no such opportunities as Falstaff, the mock hero, Brun makes a
notable rôle out of it because he knows how to seize upon and bring out
all there is in it."
[22. May 15, 1873.]
[23. May 15, 1873.]
[24. May 15, 1873.]
Johannes Brun's Falstaff is a classic to this day on the Norwegian
stage. In _Illustreret Tidende_ for July 12, 1874, K.A. Winterhjelm has
a short appreciation of his work. "Johannes Brun has, as nearly as we
can estimate, played something like three hundred rôles at Christiania
Theater. Many of them, to be sure, are minor parts--but there remains
a goodly number of important ones, from the clown in the farce to the
chief parts in the great comedies. Merely to enumerate his great
successes would carry us far afield. We recall in passing that he
has given us Falstaff both in _Henry IV_ and in _The Merry Wives of
Windsor_, Bottom in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, and Autolycus in
_A Winter's Tale_. Perhaps he lacks something of the nobleman we feel
that he should be in _Henry IV_, but aside from this petty criticism,
what a wondrous comic character Brun has given us!"
As to the success of _Coriolanus_, the sixteenth of Shakespeare's plays
to be put on in Kristiania, neither the newspapers nor the magazines
give us any clew. If we may believe a little puff in _Aftenposten_ for
January 20, 1874, the staging was to be magnificent. _Coriolanus_ was
played in a translation by Hartvig Lassen for the first time on January
21, 1874. After thirteen performances it was withdrawn on January 10,
1876, and has not been since presented.
In 1877, _Richard III_ was brought on the boards for the first time, but
apparently the occasion was not considered significant, for there is
scarcely a notice of it. The public seemed surfeited with Shakespeare,
although the average had been less than one Shakespearean play a season.
At all events, it was ten years before the theater put on a new
one--_Julius Caesar_, on March 22, 1888. It had the unheard of
distinction of being acted sixteen times in one month, from the premiere
night to April 22. Yet the papers passed it by with indifference. Most
of them gave it merely a notice, and the promised review in
_Aftenposten_ never appeared.
_Julius Caesar_ is the last new play to be presented at Christiania
Theater or at the National Theater, which replaced the old Christiania
Theater in 1899. From October, 1899 to January, 1913 the National
Theater has presented eight Shakespearean plays, but every one of
them has been a revival of plays previously presented.
_Bergen_
Up to a few years ago, the only theater of consequence in Norway,
outside of the capital, was at Bergen. In many respects the history of
the theater at Bergen is more interesting than that of the theater at
Christiania. Established in 1850, while Christiania Theater was still
largely Danish, to foster Norwegian dramatic art, it is associated with
the greatest names in Norwegian art and letters. The theater owes its
origin mainly to Ole Bull; Henrik Ibsen was official playwright from
1851 to 1857, and Bjørnson was director from 1857 to 1859. For a dozen
years or more "Den Nationale Scene i Bergen" led a precarious existence
and finally closed its doors in 1863. In 1876 the theater was reopened.
During the first period only two Shakespearean plays were
given--_Twelfth Night_ and _As You Like It_.
_As You Like It_ in Stille Beyer's version was played twice during the
season 1855-56, on September 30 and October 3. The press is silent about
the performances, but doubtless we may accept Blanc's statement that the
task was too severe for the Bergen theater.[25]
[25. Norges Første Nationale Scene. Kristiania. 1884, p. 206.]
Rather more successful were the two performances of _Twelfth Night_ in
a stage version adapted from the German of Deinhardstein. The celebrated
Laura Svendsen played the double rôle of Sebastian-Viola with
conspicuous success.[26]
[26. _Ibid._, p. 304.]
_The Merchant of Venice_ was given for the first time on October 9,
1878, two years after the reopening of the theater. _Bergens
Tidende_[27] calls the production "a creditable piece of amateur
theatricals," insisting in a review of some length that the young
theater cannot measure up to the demands which a play of Shakespeare's
makes. _Bergensposten_ is less severe. Though far from faultless, the
presentation was creditable, in some details excellent. But, quite apart
from its absolute merits, there is great satisfaction in seeing the
theater undertake plays that are worth while.[28] Both papers agree
that the audience was large and enthusiastic.
[27. _Bergens Tidende_, October 10, 1878.]
[28. _Bergensposten_, October 11, 1878.]
The next season _A Winter's Tale_ was given in H.P. Holst's
translation and adaptation of Dingelstedt's German acting version
_Ein Wintermärchen_. The press greeted it enthusiastically. _Bergens
Tidende_[29] says: "_A Winter's Tale_ was performed at our theater
yesterday in a manner that won the enthusiastic applause of a large
gathering. The principal actors were called before the curtain again and
again. It is greatly to the credit of any theater to give a Shakespeare
drama, and all the more so when it can do it in a form as artistically
perfect as was yesterday's presentation."
[29. April 20, 1880. Cf. also _Bergensposten_, April 21, 1880.]
Concerning _Othello_, third in order in the Shakespearean repertoire in
Bergen, the reviews of the first performance, November 13, 1881, are
conflicting. _Bergens Tidende_[30] is all praise. It has no hesitation
in pronouncing Johannesen's Iago a masterpiece. _Bergensposten_[31]
calls the performance passable but utterly damns Johannesen--"nothing
short of a colossal blunder." Hr. Johannesen is commended to the easily
accessible commentaries of Taine and Genée, and to Hamlet's speech to
the players. Desdemona and Cassio are dismissed in much the same
fashion.
[30. November 14, 1881.]
[31. November 15, 1881.]
A few days later, November 18, _Bergensposten_ reviewed the performance
again and was glad to note a great improvement.
_Bergens Addressecontoirs Efterretninger_[32] agrees with
_Bergensposten_ in its estimate of Johannesen. "He gives us only the
villain in Iago, not the cunning Ensign who deceives so many." But
Desdemona was thoroughly satisfying.
[32. November 15, 1881.]
Whatever may have been its initial success, _Othello_ did not last. It
was given four times during the season 1881-2, but was then dropped and
has never since been taken up.
Three different groups of _Hamlet_ performances have been given in
Bergen. In September, 1883, the Ophelia scenes from Act IV were given;
the complete play, however, was not given till November 28, 1886. The
press,[33] for once, was unanimous in declaring the production a
success. It is interesting that an untried actor at his debut was
entrusted with the rôle. But, to judge from the press comments, Hr.
Løchen more than justified the confidence in him. His interpretation of
the subtlest character in Shakespeare was thoroughly satisfying.[34]
[33. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, November 29, 1886; _Bergens
Aftenblad_, November 29, 1886; _Bergensposten_, December 2, 1886.]
[34. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, November 30, 1886; _Bergens
Aftenblad_, November 29, 1886; _Bergensposten_, December 1, 1886.]
Finally, it should be noted that a Swedish travelling company under the
direction of the well-known August Lindberg played _Hamlet_ in Bergen on
November 5, 1895.
It is apparent, from the tone of the press comment that a Shakespearean
production was regarded as a serious undertaking. The theater approached
the task hesitatingly, and the newspapers always qualify their praise or
their blame with some apologetic remark about "the limited resources of
our theater." This explains the long gaps between new productions, five
years between _Othello_ (1881) and the complete _Hamlet_ (1886); five
years likewise between _Hamlet_ and _King Henry IV_.
_Henry IV_ in Bjørnson's stage cutting promised at first to establish
itself. Its first performance was greeted by a crowded house, and
enthusiasm ran high. The press questions the right of the play to the
title of _Henry IV_, since it is a collection of scenes grouped about
Prince Hal and Falstaff. But aside from this purely objective criticism
the comment is favorable.[35]
[35. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, March 2, 1891; _Bergens Aftenblad_,
March 2, 1891.]
With the second performance (March 4, 1891) comes a change. _Bergens
Tidende_ remarks that it is a common experience that a second
performance is not so successful as the first. Certainly this was true
in the case of _Henry IV_. The life and sparkle were gone, and the
sallies of Falstaff awakened no such infectious laughter as they had a
few evenings before.[36] There was no applause from the crowded house,
and the coolness of the audience reacted upon the players--all in
violent contrast to the first performance. The reviewer in _Aftenbladet_
predicts that the production will have no very long life.[37] He was
right. It was given once more, on March 6. Since then the theater-goers
of Bergen have not seen it on their own stage.
[36. Cf. March 5, 1891.]
[37. Cf. March 5, 1891.]
Sille Beyer's _Viola_ (which, in turn, is an adaptation of the German of
Deinhardstein) had been played twice at the old Bergen Theater, July 17
and 18, 1861. It was now (Oct. 9, 1892) revived in a new cutting based
on Lembcke's Danish translation. _Bergens Aftenblad_ declares that the
cutting was reckless and the staging almost beggarly. The presentation
itself hardly rose above the mediocre.[38] _Bergens Tidende_, on the
other hand, reports that the performance was an entire success. The
caste was unexpectedly strong; the costumes and scenery splendid. The
audience was appreciative and there was generous applause.[39]
[38. October 10, 1892.]
[39. October 10 and 13, 1892.]
The last new play to find a place on the repertoire at Bergen is _Romeo
and Juliet_. This was performed four times in May, 1897. Like _Henry
IV_, it promised to be a great success, but it survived only four
performances. _Bergens Tidende_[40] gives a careful, well-written
analysis of the play and of the presentation. The reviewer gives full
credit for the beauty of the staging and the excellence of the acting,
but criticises the censor sharply for the unskillful cutting, and the
stage manager for the long, tiresome waits. _Bergens Aftenblad_[41]
praises the performance almost without reserve.
[40. May 15, 1897.]
[41. May 15, 1897.]
And the last chapter in the history of Shakespeare's dramas in Bergen
is a revival of _A Winter's Tale_ in the season 1902-3. The theater had
done its utmost to give a spendid and worthy setting, and great care was
given to the rehearsals. The result was a performance which, for beauty,
symmetry, and artistic unity ranks among the very best that have ever
been seen at the theater. The press was unanimous in its cordial
recognition.[42] The play was given no less than nine times during
October, 1902. Since then Shakespeare has not been given at _Den
Nationale Scene i Bergen_.
[42. See _Bergens Aftenblad_ for October 6-9, 1902; _Bergens
Tidende_, October 6, 1902.]
APPENDIX
Register Of Shakespearean Performances In Norway
_Kristiania_
I. Christiania Theater.
The following record is an excerpt of all the data relating to
Shakespeare in T. Blanc: _Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider, som
siden Kristiania Theaters offentlige Aabning den 30 Januar, 1827, har
været opførte paa samme af dets Personale indtil 15 Juni 1899_. This
_Fortegnelse_ is still unpublished. The MS. is quarto No. 940 in the
University Library, Kristiania.
1. Blind Alarm. Skuespil i fem Akter af Shakespeare. (Original Title:
_Much Ado About Nothing_). Translated by Carl Borgaard, from the
nineteenth performance, May 18, 1878, under the title _Stor Staahei
for Ingenting_, Oct. 29, 1854, May 26, 1878. 18 times.
2. Coriolanus. Sørgespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare, bearbeidet for Scenen
af H. Lassen. Jan. 21, 1874--Jan. 10, 1876. 13 times.
3. De Muntre Koner i Windsor. Lystspil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare.
(Adapted for the stage by H. Lassen.) May 14, 1873, Nov. 8, 1876.
12 times.
4. En Skjærsommernatsdrøm. Eventyrkomedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare.
(Original Title: _A Midsummer Night's Dream_.) Translated by
Oehlenschlæger. Music by Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. April 17, 1865, May 27,
1866. 10 times.
5. Et Vintereventyr. Romantisk Skuespil i 5 Akter. Adapted from
Shakespeare's _A Winter's Tale_ and Dinglestedt's _Ein Wintermärchen_
by H.P. Holst. Music by Flotow. May 4, 1866, March 21, 1893. 57 times.
6. Hamlet. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated by Foersom
and Lembcke. March 4, 1870, April 27, 1883. 28 times.
7. Hun Maa Tæmmes. Lystspil i 4 Akter. Adapted from Shakespeare's
_Taming of the Shrew_. March 21, 1858, April 12, 1881. 28 times.
8. Julius Caesar. Tragedie i 5 Akter af William Shakespeare. Translated
by H. Lassen. March 22, 1887, April 22, 1887. 16 times.
9. Kjøbmanden i Venedig. Skuespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare. Adapted for
the stage from Rahbek's translation. From the eighth performance (Oct.
14, 1874) probably in a new translation by Lembcke. Sept. 17, 1861,
June 12, 1882. 23 times.
10. Kong Henrik Den Fjerde. Skuespil i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare.
Adapted by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson from _King Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2_
in Lembcke's translation. Feb. 12, 1867, Feb. 8, 1885. 17 times.
11. Kong Richard III. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated
by Lembcke. May 27, 1877, March 10, 1891. 26 times.
12. Kongens Læge. Romantisk Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Shakespeares
_All's Well That Ends Well_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. From the thirteenth
performance (May 23, 1869) given under the title _Naar Enden er god er
Alting godt_ in a new translation by Edvard Lembcke. Jan. 5, 1854, Jan.
24, 1882. 20 times.
13. Livet i Skoven. Romantisk Lystspil i 4 Akter efter Shakespeares
_As You Like It_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. Dec. 9, 1852, Sept. 25, 1878.
19 times.
14. Macbeth. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Schiller's version
translated by Peter Foersom. Music by Weyse. July 28, 1844, Jan. 6,
1896. 37 times.
15. Othello, Moren af Venedig. Tragedie i 5 Akter af Shakespeare.
Translated by P.L. Wulff. Jan. 3, 1845, March 10, 1872. 10 times.
16. Romeo og Julie. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated by
P. Foersom and A.E. Boye. From the sixth performance (April 4, 1880)
probably in a new translation by Lembcke. Nov. 11, 1852, July 12, 1899.
42 times.
17. Viola. Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Shakespeare's _Twelfth Night_.
Translated and adapted by Sille Beyer. From the thirteenth performance
(Jan. 21, 1890) under the title _Helligtrekongersaften, eller hvad man
vil_. (In Lembcke's translation with music by Catherinus Elling.) Nov.
20, 1860, May 31, 1891. 30 times.
II. Nationaltheatret.
The record of the Shakespearean performances at Nationaltheatret has
been compiled from the summary of performances given in the decade
1899-1909 contained in _Beretning om Nationaltheatrets Virksomhed i
Aaret 1909-1910_. Kristiania, 1910. The record of performances
subsequent to 1910, as well as the date of the first performances of
all plays, has been found in the Journal of the theater.
1. Helligtrekongersaften. (Twelfth Night). Oct. 5, 1899. 10 times.
2. Trold Kan Tæmmes. (The Taming of the Shrew.) Dec. 26, 1900. 35 times.
3. En Sommernats Dröm. (A Midsummer Night's Dream) Jan. 15, 1903.
20 times.
4. Kjöbmanden i Venedig. (The Merchant of Venice) Sept. 5, 1906.
20 times.
5. Hamlet. Oct. 31, 1907. 17 times.
6. Othello. Oct. 22, 1908. 12 times.
7. Henry IV. Feb. 10, 1910. 10 times.
8. As You Like It. Nov. 7, 1912. This play was still being given when
the investigation ceased. Ten performances had been given.
_Bergen_
I. The First Theater in Bergen (1850-1863)
The information relating to Shakespeare at the old theater is gathered
from T. Blanc: _Norges første nationale Scene. Bergen 1850-1863. Et
Bidrag til den norske dramatiske Kunsts Historie. Kristiania, 1884_.
1. Livet I Skoven. Romantisk Skuespil i 4 Akter efter Shakespeares
_As You Like It_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. Sept. 30 and Oct. 9, 1855.
2 times.
2. Viola. Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Deinhardsteins Bearbeidelse af
Shakespeares _What You Will_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. July 17 and 18,
1861. 2 times.
II. The New Theater at Bergen (1876)
The following data have been communicated to me by Hr. Christian Landal,
of the theater at Bergen. They have been compiled from the _Journal
(Spillejournal)_ of the theater.
1. Kjöbmanden i Venedig (The Merchant of Venice) Oct. 9, 11, 13, 1878.
Friday, June 18, 1880, the Shylock scenes, with Emil Paulsen (of the
Royal Theater in Copenhagen) as guest. 4 times.
2. Et Vintereventyr. (A Winter's Tale) April 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 1880;
May 9, 1880; Nov. 28, 29, 1889; Oct. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20,
1902. 18 times.
3. Othello. Nov. 13, 16, 18, 28, 1881. 4 times.
4. Hamlet. Nov. 28 and 29; Dec. 1, 5, 19, 1886. The Ophelia scenes from
Act 4 with Ida Falberg Kiachas as guest. Sept. 12, 14, 16, 21, 1883.
Guest performance by August Lindberg and his Swedish company. Nov. 15,
1895. 10 times.
5. Helligtrekongersaften. (_Twelfth Night_) in Lembcke's translation.
Oct. 9, 12, 14, 16, 1892; April 23, 1893 in Stavanger. 5 times.
6. Romeo og Julie. May 12, 16, 19, 27, 1897. 4 times.
SUMMARY
There have been played in Christiania seventeen plays of Shakespeare's
with a total of 540 performances. In Bergen seven Shakespearean plays
have been played with a total of 49 performances.
* * * * *
[Errors and Anomalies Noted by Transcriber:
English:
_passim_
Oehlenschläger/Oehlenschlæger
_variant spellings in original_
p. 6n.
after 1807 the history of Shakespeare in Denmark is more complicated
_original has_ Denkmark
p. 9
It is Coriolanus' outburst of wrath against the pretensions of the
tribunes (III, 1)
_original has_ 111-1
p. 15
even to thought as sophisticated as this
_original has_ sophiscated
p. 32
And when we read the scenes in which Lancelot Gobbo figures...
_spelling as in original_
p. 36
Titania's instructions to the fairies
_original has_ faries
p. 39
though there seems to be little to choose between them
_original has_ thought here
p. 43
the Foersom-Lembcke version has become standard
_original has_ Forsom-Lembcke
p. 50
notably in the duke's speech
_original has_ notaby
(Silvius and Pippa)
_original has_ anid
p. 51
dialogue between Orlando and Rosalind in II, 2
_so in original_
p. 57
Also he has acquitted himself well
_original has_ aquitted
p. 68
nothing to do with the case.
_original has_ ...with case.
p. 69
Molière
_original has_ Moliére
p. 80
Cassius' weakness for strong drink
_so in original_
p. 81n.
The Shakespearean Controversy
_original has_ Shakespeareen
p. 82n.
and Bierfreund, to declare
_original has_ ...Bierfreund to, declare
p. 86
He images Shakespeare
_so in original_: imagines?
p. 88
in I, 3-123 where Shylock suddenly stops after "say this"
_original has_ I-3-1.3
(Sic!)
_so in original_
Occasionally a syllable is lacking
_original has_ Occassionally
p. 89
Vailing her high tops higher than her ribs. (I, 1-28)
_original has_ I-1-28
p. 95nn.
See p. 94, note 1.
_original has_ p. 85, note 1
November 15, 1845 (_twice_)
_date and year as in original_
p. 97n.
March 22, 1858.
_date as in original_
p. 98
This may be added, however: A play which, according to the...
_original has_
This may be according added, however: A play which, to the...
p. 98
As the piece is arranged now, Viola and her brother
_original has_ now Viola, and
p. 102, 103
in the magazine _Kringsjaa_.[17] .... the spirit has fled."[17]
_duplicate footnote reference in original_
p. 103n.
November 1, 1907.
_original has_ 1917
p. 104
no theater could have given a better caste
_spelling as in original_
p. 107
commentaries of Taine and Genée
_original has_ Genèe
p. 108
The caste was unexpectedly strong
_spelling as in original_
Danish and Norwegian:
p. 2
hvad for en Aarsag afholder
_original has_ an Aarsag
Mig synes der er megen Fornuft
_original has_ Meg synes...
p. 3
Du maae læse Testamentet for os, Cæsars Testament!
_original has_ Cæsars Testamment
p. 7
Maaskee I har det hørt, men da de
_original has_ Maaskee i har...
Slags Smil, der sig fra Lungen ikke skrev
_original has_ Smill
p. 8
Endskjøndt de ikke alle kunde see
_original has_ ...ikke all kunne...
p. 10
Der mer agtværdig er end nogensinde
_original has_ ...en nogensinde
p. 11
endnu citeres af Fords _Perkin Warbeck_, II, 2
_original has_ 11, 2
p. 13
Kinn-Ljosken hadde skemt dei Stjernor (_second occurrence_)
_original has_ Sternor
p. 17
og aldrig hev eg set ein Engel gaa
_original has_ en Engel
og gjenta mi ser støtt eg gaa paa Jori
_original has_ Jorl
p. 19
Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg,
_original has_ trojas
p. 20
de Trolddomsurter der foryngede / den gamle Aeson
_original has_
...de Troldomsurter der foryngede den / gamle Aeson
Løb fra Venedig med en lystig Elsker
_original has_ er lystig Elsker
hvis jeg ei hørte nogen komme--tys!
_original has_ komm-/tys at line break
p. 22
Brum saa dette stolte Hierte brister;
_original has_ brist er
p. 33
han hadde som ein attaat-snev;
_original has_ altaat-snev
p. 33
"Du fenden," segjer eg, "du raader meg godt."
_original has_ "Du fenden, segjer eg... _missing close quote_
p. 33
"I _Soga um Kaupmannen i Venetia_
_original has_ I, Soga um...
p. 34
Velkomen, vandrar; hev du blomen der?
_original has_ Velkomon
This is all in the first selection in _Syn og Segn_, No. 3.
_original has_ Syn og segn
p. 36
_Fjerde Alven_:
_original has_ Fjorde
Til Nattljos hennar voksbein slit i fleng
_original has_ slitt
p. 37
so god natt og bysselull (_first occurrence_)
_original has_ byselul
faa vaar dronning ottefull (_first occurrence_)
_original has_ ottefulls
faa vaar dronning ottefull (_second occurrence_)
_original has_ otteful
p. 41
_Mønsaas_:
Her er ei liste...
_original has_ Mónsaas
p. 42
langt fleir enn kvinnelippur fram hev bori
_original has_ fler
p. 44
_Bernardo_:
_original has_ Bernado
p. 94n.
"Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider..."
_original has_ over all
p. 97
saaatsige taber af sin Fylde
_not an error_ (saa at sige)
p. 107
Bergens Addressecontoirs Efterretninger
_spelling as in original_
p. 110
har været opførte paa samme
_original has_ varet opforte
p. 110
bearbeidet for Scenen af H. Lassen
_original has_ bearbeidet for / for Scenen _at line break_
p. 111
efter Shakespeares _All's Well That Ends Well_
_original has_ after Shakespeare's...
p. 111, 112 (twice)
Romeo og Julie.
_normal Dano-Norse form of name_
p. 112
Deinhardsteins Bearbeidelse af Shakespeares _What You Will_
_original has_ Shakespeare's ]