An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway - Martin Brown Ruud (book club reads .TXT) 📗

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