An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway, Martin Brown Ruud [books suggested by bill gates txt] 📗
- Author: Martin Brown Ruud
Book online «An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway, Martin Brown Ruud [books suggested by bill gates txt] 📗». Author Martin Brown Ruud
or the new Norwegian "Riksmaal" translation, and Ivar Aasen's early
Landsmaal version holds its own. It keeps the right tone. The dignity of
the original is scarcely marred by a note of the colloquial. Scarcely
marred! For just as many Norwegians are offended by such a phrase as
"Hennar Taus er fagrar' en ho sjølv" in the balcony scene, so many more
will object to the colloquial "Au, d'er Knuten." _Au_ has no place in
dignified verse, and surely it is a most unhappy equivalent for "Ay,
there's the rub." Aasen would have replied that Hamlet's words are
themselves colloquial; but the English conveys no such connotation of
easy speech as does the Landsmaal to a great part of the Norwegian
people. But this is a trifle. The fact remains that Aasen gave a noble
form to Shakespeare's noble verse.
E
For many years the work of Hauge and Aasen stood alone in Norwegian
literature. The reading public was content to go to Denmark, and the
growing Landsmaal literature was concerned with other matters--first of
all, with the task of establishing itself and the even more complicated
problem of finding a form--orthography, syntax, and inflexions which
should command general acceptance. For the Landsmaal of Ivar Aasen was
frankly based on "the best dialects," and by this he meant, of course,
the dialects that best preserved the forms of the Old Norse. These were
the dialects of the west coast and the mountains. To Aasen the speech of
the towns, of the south-east coast and of the great eastern valleys and
uplands was corrupt and vitiated. It seemed foreign, saturated and
spoiled by Danish. There were those, however, who saw farther. If
Landsmaal was to strike root, it must take into account not merely "the
purest dialects" but the speech of the whole country. It could not, for
example, retain forms like "dat," "dan," etc., which were peculiar to
Søndmør, because they happened to be lineal descendants of Old Norse,
nor should it insist on preterites in _ade_ and participles in _ad_
merely because these forms were found in the sagas. We cannot enter upon
this subject; we can but point out that this movement was born almost
with Landsmaal itself, and that, after Aasen's fragments, the first
Norwegian translation of any part of Shakespeare is a rendering of
Sonnet CXXX in popularized Eastern, as distinguished from Aasen's
literary, aristocratic Western Landsmaal. It is the first translation of
a Shakespearean sonnet on Norwegian soil. The new language was hewing
out new paths.
Som Soli Augunn' inkje skjin,
og som Koraller inkje Lipunn' glansar,
og snjokvit hev ho inkje Halsen sin,
og Gullhaar inkje Hove hennar kransar,
Eg baae kvit' og raue Roser ser--,
paa Kinni hennar deira Lit'kje blandast;
og meire fin vel Blomsterangen er,
en den som ut fraa Lipunn' hennar andast.
Eg høyrt hev hennar Røyst og veit endaa,
at inkje som ein Song dei læter Ori;
og aldrig hev eg set ein Engel gaa--
og gjenta mi ser støtt eg gaa paa Jori.
Men ho er større Lov og Ære vær
enn pyntedokkane me laana Glansen.
Den reine Hugen seg i alting ter,
og ljost ho smilar under Brurekransen.[18]
[18. "Ein Sonett etter William Shakespeare." _Fram_--1872.]
Obviously this is not a sonnet at all. Not only does the translator
ignore Shakespeare's rime scheme, but he sets aside the elementary
definition of a sonnet--a poem of fourteen lines. We have here sixteen
lines and the last two add nothing to the original. The poet, through
lack of skill, has simply run on. He could have ended with line 14 and
then, whatever other criticism might have been passed upon his work, we
should have had at least the sonnet form. The additional lines are in
themselves fairly good poetry but they have no place in what purports to
be translation. The translator signs himself simply "r." Whoever he was,
he had poetic feeling and power of expression. No mere poetaster could
have given lines so exquisite in their imagery, so full of music, and
so happy in their phrasing. This fact in itself makes it a poor
translation, for it is rather a paraphrase with a quality and excellence
all its own. Not a line exactly renders the English. The paraphrase is
never so good as the original but, considered by itself, it is good
poetry. The disillusionment comes only with comparison. On the whole,
this second attempt to put Shakespeare into Landsmaal was distinctly
less successful than the first. As poetry it does not measure up to
Aasen; as translation it is periphrastic, arbitrary, not at all
faithful.
F
The translations which we have thus far considered were mere
fragments--brief soliloquies or a single sonnet, and they were done into
a dialect which was not then and is not now the prevailing literary
language of the country. They were earnest and, in the case of Aasen,
successful attempts to show that Landsmaal was adequate to the most
varied and remote of styles. But many years were to elapse before anyone
attempted the far more difficult task of turning any considerable part
of Shakespeare into "Modern Norwegian."
Norway still relied, with no apparent sense of humiliation, on the
translations of Shakespeare as they came up from Copenhagen. In 1881,
however, Hartvig Lassen (1824-1897) translated _The Merchant of
Venice_.[19] Lassen matriculated as a student in 1842, and from 1850
supported himself as a literateur, writing reviews of books and plays
for _Krydseren_ and _Aftenposten_. In 1872 he was appointed Artistic
Censor at the theater, and in that office translated a multitude of
plays from almost every language of Western Europe. His published
translations of Shakespeare are, however, quite unrelated to his
theatrical work. They were done for school use and published by
_Selskabet for Folkeoplysningens Fremme_ (Society for the Promotion
of Popular Education).
[19. _Kjøbmanden i Venedig_--Et Skuespil af William
Shakespeare. Oversat af Hartvig Lassen. Udgivet af Selskabet for
Folkeoplysningens Fremme som andet Tillægshefte til _Folkevennen_
for 1881. Kristiania, 1881.]
To _Kjøbmanden i Venedig_ there is no introduction and no notes--merely
a postscript in which the translator declares that he has endeavored
everywhere faithfully to reproduce the peculiar tone of the play and to
preserve the concentration of style which is everywhere characteristic
of Shakespeare. He acknowledges his indebtedness to the Swedish
translation by Hagberg and the German by Schlegel. Inasmuch as this work
was published for wide, general distribution and for reading in the
schools, Lassen cut out the passages which he deemed unsuitable for the
untutored mind. "But," he adds, "with the exception of the last scene of
Act III, which, in its expurgated form, would be too fragmentary (and
which, indeed, does not bear any immediate relation to the action), only
a few isolated passages have been cut. Shakespeare has lost next to
nothing, and a great deal has been gained if I have hereby removed one
ground for the hesitation which most teachers would feel in using the
book in the public schools." In Act III, Scene 5 is omitted entirely,
and obvious passages in other parts of the play.
It has frequently been said that Lassen did little more than
"norvagicize" Lembcke's Danish renderings. And certainly even the most
cursory reading will show that he had Lembcke at hand. But comparison
will also show that variations from Lembcke are numerous and
considerable. Lassen was a man of letters, a critic, and a good student
of foreign languages, but he was no poet, and his _Merchant of Venice_
is, generally speaking, much inferior to Lembcke's. Compare, for
example, the exquisite opening of the fifth act:
LASSEN
_Lor_:
Klart skinner Maanen, i en Nat som denne,
da Vinden gled med Lys igjennem Løvet,
og alt var tyst: i slig en Nat forvist
Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg,
til Grækerlejren, til sin Cressida
udsukkende sin Sjæl.
LEMBCKE
Klart skinner Maanen, i en Nat som denne,
mens Luftningen saa sagte kyssed Træet
at knapt det sused, i en saadan Nat
steg Troilus vist up paa Trojas Mur
og sukked ud sin Sjæl mod Grækerlejren
der gjemte Cressida.
_Jes_:
I slig en Nat
sig Thisbe listed ængstelig, over Duggen
saa Løvens Skygge før hun saa den selv,
og løb forskrækket bort.
En saadan Nat
gik Thisbe bange trippende paa Duggen
og øjned Løvens Skygge før den selv
og løb forfærdet bort.
_Lor_:
I slig en Nat
stod Dido med en Vidjevaand i Haanden
paa vilden strand, og vinked til Kartago
sin elsker hjem igjen.
En saadan Nat
stod Dido med en Vidjekvist i Haanden
paa vilden Strand og vinkede sin Elsker
tilbage til Carthagos Kyst.
_Jes_:
I slig en Nat
Medea plukked Galder-Urt for Aeson
hans Ungdom at forny.
Det var
en saadan Nat, da sankede Medea
de Trolddomsurter der foryngede
den gamle Aeson.
_Lor_:
I slig en Nat
stjal Jessica sig fra den rige Jøde,
Løb fra Venedig med en lystig Elsker
til Belmont uden Stands.
Og en saadan Nat
sneg Jessica sig fra den rige Jøde
og løb med en Landstryger fra Venedig
herhid til Belmont.
_Jes_:
I slig en Nat
svor ung Lorenzo at han elsked hende,
stjal hendes Sjæl med mange Troskabsløfter
og ikke et var sandt.
Og en saadan Nat
svor ung Lorenzo hende Kjærlighed
og stjal med Troskabseder hendes Hjerte
og aldrig en var sand.
_Lor_:
I slig en Nat
skjøn Jessica, den lille Klaffertunge,
løi paa sin Elsker, og han tilgav hende.
I slig en Nat
bagtalte just skjøn Jessica sin Elsker
ret som en lille Trold, og han tilgav det.
_Jes_:
Jeg gad fortalt dig mer om slig en Nat,
hvis jeg ei hørte nogen komme--tys!
Jeg skulde sagtens "overnatte" dig
hvis ingen kom; men tys, jeg hører der
Trin af en Mand.
Lembcke's version is faithful to the point of slavishness. Compare,
for example, "Jeg skulde sagtens overnatte dig" with "I would outnight
you." Lassen, though never grossly inaccurate, allows himself greater
liberties. Compare lines 2-6 with the original and with Lembcke. In
every case the Danish version is more faithful than the Norwegian. And
more mellifluous. Why Lassen should choose such clumsy and banal lines
as:
I slig en Nat
Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg
when he could have used Lembcke's, is inexplicable except on the
hypothesis that he was eager to prove his own originality. The remainder
of Lorenzo's first speech is scarcely better. It is neither good
translation nor decent verse.
In 1882 came Lassen's _Julius Caesar_,[20] likewise published as a
supplement to _Folkevennen_ for use in the schools. A short postscript
tells us that the principles which governed in the translation of the
earlier play have governed here also. Lassen specifically declares that
he used Foersom's translation (Copenhagen, 1811) as the basis for the
translation of Antony's oration. A comparison shows that in this scene
Lassen follows Foersom closely--he keeps archaisms which Lembcke
amended. One or two instances:
_Foersom_:
Seer, her foer Casii Dolk igjennem den;
seer, hvilken Rift den nidske Casca gjorde;
her rammed' den høitelskte Bruti Dolk, etc.
_Lembcke_:
Se, her foer Cassius' Dolk igjennem den;
se hvilken Rift den onde Casca gjorde.
Her stødte Brutus den høitelskede, etc.
_Lassen_:
Se! her foer Casii Dolk igjennem den;
se hvilken Rift den onde
Comments (0)