An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway Part 16

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 Oehlenschlager did. It was the fas.h.i.+on. And how difficult it is to break with fas.h.i.+on 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 p.r.o.nouncing _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. Bjrnson's article in _Aftenbladet_ is not merely suggestive as Shakespearean criticism, but it throws valuable light on Bjrnson 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 Stromberg, 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. Bocher, and at the close of the season 1829-30, Bocher gave by way of epilogue to the year, two performances including scenes from Holberg's _Melampe_, Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, and Oehlenschlager'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 vaert opfrt 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 _Oth.e.l.lo_, 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 pa.s.sions. In _Oth.e.l.lo_, 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 pa.s.sion, we can, at least, feel the enn.o.bling 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 graendselse Fortvivlelse blev gjengivet med en naesten forfaerdelig 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 circ.u.mstances. _Aftenposten_ was doubtless right when it criticised the director for entrusting so great a play to unpractised hands, a.s.suming 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 s.h.i.+fted 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 n.o.ble 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 antic.i.p.ated 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 t.i.tle _Blind Alarm_. The translation was by Carl Borgaard, director of the theater. But here, too, contemporary doc.u.ments 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 t.i.tle _Hun Maa Taemmes_ 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 fas.h.i.+on the meaning of the English t.i.tle 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, Sorglse og Romantiske vandre saa ligeberettiget side om side igjennem Stykket, mens det vrige samler sig om Viola, det opveies ved den strre Forstaaelighed for vort Publik.u.m 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 roles may therefore be played by Jomfru Svendsen.

The critic is captivated by her acting of the double role, and Jrgensen'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.