An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway Part 17

A thorough search through the newspaper files fails to reveal even a slight notice of _The Merchant of Venice_ (Kjbmanden 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_ (Skjaersommernatsdrmmen) played in Oehlenschlager's translation under Bjrnson'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 Bjrnson 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 Bjrnson's son, Bjrn Bjrnson.

This time, however, it was called _Midsommernatsdrommen_, 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 Bjrnson'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 Wintermarchen_. 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 Bjrnson was still director. To his desire to give Johannes Brun an opportunity for the display of his genius in the greatest of comic roles we owe this version of the play. Bjrnson 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.

Bjrnson's original prompt book is not now available. In 1910, however, H. Wiers Jensen, a playwright a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sume 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 n.o.bles 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 role is taken by Warwick.

Act II, Sc. 2 of Bjrnson'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 Bjrnson'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 Bjrnson'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 const.i.tute 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 a.s.sertion 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 Bjrnson has done it with considerable skill. Bjrnson'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 Stjernstrm put on in Stockholm, and there can be little doubt that his success suggested the idea to Bjrnson. 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 Bjrnson 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 Lvaas 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 pa.s.s 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 traengt 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 role 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 cla.s.sic to this day on the Norwegian stage. In _Ill.u.s.treret 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 roles 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 pa.s.sing 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 n.o.bleman 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 _Coriola.n.u.s_, 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. _Coriola.n.u.s_ was played in a translation by Hartvig La.s.sen 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 pa.s.sed it by with indifference. Most of them gave it merely a notice, and the promised review in _Aftenposten_ never appeared.