An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway, Martin Brown Ruud [books suggested by bill gates txt] 📗

_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    is unpublished.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,

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,

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,