Chapter 16

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 more interesting than that of the theater at Christiania. Established in 1850, while Christiania Theater was still largely Danish, to foster Norwegian dramatic art, it is associated with the greatest names in Norwegian art and letters. The theater owes its origin mainly to Ole Bull; Henrik Ibsen was official playwright from 1851 to 1857, and Bjørnson was director from 1857 to 1859. For a dozen years or more "Den Nationale Scene i Bergen" led a precarious existence and finally closed its doors in 1863. In 1876 the theater was reopened. During the first period only two Shakespearean plays were given--_Twelfth Night_ and _As You Like It_.

_As You Like It_ in Stille Beyer's version was played twice during the season 1855-56, on September 30 and October 3. The press is silent about the performances, but doubtless we may accept Blanc's statement that the task was too severe for the Bergen theater.[25]

[25. Norges Første Nationale Scene. Kristiania. 1884, p. 206.]

Rather more successful were the two performances of _Twelfth Night_ in a stage version adapted from the German of Deinhardstein. The celebrated Laura Svendsen played the double rôle of Sebastian-Viola with conspicuous success.[26]

[26. _Ibid._, p. 304.]

_The Merchant of Venice_ was given for the first time on October 9, 1878, two years after the reopening of the theater. _Bergens Tidende_[27] calls the production "a creditable piece of amateur theatricals," insisting in a review of some length that the young theater cannot measure up to the demands which a play of Shakespeare's makes. _Bergensposten_ is less severe. Though far from faultless, the presentation was creditable, in some details excellent. But, quite apart from its absolute merits, there is great satisfaction in seeing the theater undertake plays that are worth while.[28] Both papers agree that the audience was large and enthusiastic.

[27. _Bergens Tidende_, October 10, 1878.]

[28. _Bergensposten_, October 11, 1878.]

The next season _A Winter's Tale_ was given in H.P. Holst's translation and adaptation of Dingelstedt's German acting version _Ein Wintermärchen_. The press greeted it enthusiastically. _Bergens Tidende_[29] says: "_A Winter's Tale_ was performed at our theater yesterday in a manner that won the enthusiastic applause of a large gathering. The principal actors were called before the curtain again and again. It is greatly to the credit of any theater to give a Shakespeare drama, and all the more so when it can do it in a form as artistically perfect as was yesterday's presentation."

[29. April 20, 1880. Cf. also _Bergensposten_, April 21, 1880.]

Concerning _Othello_, third in order in the Shakespearean repertoire in Bergen, the reviews of the first performance, November 13, 1881, are conflicting. _Bergens Tidende_[30] is all praise. It has no hesitation in pronouncing Johannesen's Iago a masterpiece. _Bergensposten_[31] calls the performance passable but utterly damns Johannesen--"nothing short of a colossal blunder." Hr. Johannesen is commended to the easily accessible commentaries of Taine and Genée, and to Hamlet's speech to the players. Desdemona and Cassio are dismissed in much the same fashion.

[30. November 14, 1881.]

[31. November 15, 1881.]

A few days later, November 18, _Bergensposten_ reviewed the performance again and was glad to note a great improvement.

_Bergens Addressecontoirs Efterretninger_[32] agrees with _Bergensposten_ in its estimate of Johannesen. "He gives us only the villain in Iago, not the cunning Ensign who deceives so many." But Desdemona was thoroughly satisfying.

[32. November 15, 1881.]

Whatever may have been its initial success, _Othello_ did not last. It was given four times during the season 1881-2, but was then dropped and has never since been taken up.

Three different groups of _Hamlet_ performances have been given in Bergen. In September, 1883, the Ophelia scenes from Act IV were given; the complete play, however, was not given till November 28, 1886. The press,[33] for once, was unanimous in declaring the production a success. It is interesting that an untried actor at his debut was entrusted with the rôle. But, to judge from the press comments, Hr. Løchen more than justified the confidence in him. His interpretation of the subtlest character in Shakespeare was thoroughly satisfying.[34]

[33. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, November 29, 1886; _Bergens Aftenblad_, November 29, 1886; _Bergensposten_, December 2, 1886.]

[34. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, November 30, 1886; _Bergens Aftenblad_, November 29, 1886; _Bergensposten_, December 1, 1886.]

Finally, it should be noted that a Swedish travelling company under the direction of the well-known August Lindberg played _Hamlet_ in Bergen on November 5, 1895.

It is apparent, from the tone of the press comment that a Shakespearean production was regarded as a serious undertaking. The theater approached the task hesitatingly, and the newspapers always qualify their praise or their blame with some apologetic remark about "the limited resources of our theater." This explains the long gaps between new productions, five years between _Othello_ (1881) and the complete _Hamlet_ (1886); five years likewise between _Hamlet_ and _King Henry IV_.

_Henry IV_ in Bjørnson's stage cutting promised at first to establish itself. Its first performance was greeted by a crowded house, and enthusiasm ran high. The press questions the right of the play to the title of _Henry IV_, since it is a collection of scenes grouped about Prince Hal and Falstaff. But aside from this purely objective criticism the comment is favorable.[35]

[35. Cf. _Bergens Tidende_, March 2, 1891; _Bergens Aftenblad_, March 2, 1891.]

With the second performance (March 4, 1891) comes a change. _Bergens Tidende_ remarks that it is a common experience that a second performance is not so successful as the first. Certainly this was true in the case of _Henry IV_. The life and sparkle were gone, and the sallies of Falstaff awakened no such infectious laughter as they had a few evenings before.[36] There was no applause from the crowded house, and the coolness of the audience reacted upon the players--all in violent contrast to the first performance. The reviewer in _Aftenbladet_ predicts that the production will have no very long life.[37] He was right. It was given once more, on March 6. Since then the theater-goers of Bergen have not seen it on their own stage.

[36. Cf. March 5, 1891.]

[37. Cf. March 5, 1891.]

Sille Beyer's _Viola_ (which, in turn, is an adaptation of the German of Deinhardstein) had been played twice at the old Bergen Theater, July 17 and 18, 1861. It was now (Oct. 9, 1892) revived in a new cutting based on Lembcke's Danish translation. _Bergens Aftenblad_ declares that the cutting was reckless and the staging almost beggarly. The presentation itself hardly rose above the mediocre.[38] _Bergens Tidende_, on the other hand, reports that the performance was an entire success. The caste was unexpectedly strong; the costumes and scenery splendid. The audience was appreciative and there was generous applause.[39]

[38. October 10, 1892.]

[39. October 10 and 13, 1892.]

The last new play to find a place on the repertoire at Bergen is _Romeo and Juliet_. This was performed four times in May, 1897. Like _Henry IV_, it promised to be a great success, but it survived only four performances. _Bergens Tidende_[40] gives a careful, well-written analysis of the play and of the presentation. The reviewer gives full credit for the beauty of the staging and the excellence of the acting, but criticises the censor sharply for the unskillful cutting, and the stage manager for the long, tiresome waits. _Bergens Aftenblad_[41] praises the performance almost without reserve.

[40. May 15, 1897.]

[41. May 15, 1897.]

And the last chapter in the history of Shakespeare's dramas in Bergen is a revival of _A Winter's Tale_ in the season 1902-3. The theater had done its utmost to give a spendid and worthy setting, and great care was given to the rehearsals. The result was a performance which, for beauty, symmetry, and artistic unity ranks among the very best that have ever been seen at the theater. The press was unanimous in its cordial recognition.[42] The play was given no less than nine times during October, 1902. Since then Shakespeare has not been given at _Den Nationale Scene i Bergen_.

[42. See _Bergens Aftenblad_ for October 6-9, 1902; _Bergens Tidende_, October 6, 1902.]

APPENDIX

Register Of Shakespearean Performances In Norway

_Kristiania_

I. Christiania Theater.

The following record is an excerpt of all the data relating to Shakespeare in T. Blanc: _Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider, som siden Kristiania Theaters offentlige Aabning den 30 Januar, 1827, har været opførte paa samme af dets Personale indtil 15 Juni 1899_. This _Fortegnelse_ is still unpublished. The MS. is quarto No. 940 in the University Library, Kristiania.

1. Blind Alarm. Skuespil i fem Akter af Shakespeare. (Original Title: _Much Ado About Nothing_). Translated by Carl Borgaard, from the nineteenth performance, May 18, 1878, under the title _Stor Staahei for Ingenting_, Oct. 29, 1854, May 26, 1878. 18 times.

2. Coriolanus. Sørgespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare, bearbeidet for Scenen af H. Lassen. Jan. 21, 1874--Jan. 10, 1876. 13 times.

3. De Muntre Koner i Windsor. Lystspil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare. (Adapted for the stage by H. Lassen.) May 14, 1873, Nov. 8, 1876. 12 times.

4. En Skjærsommernatsdrøm. Eventyrkomedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. (Original Title: _A Midsummer Night's Dream_.) Translated by Oehlenschlæger. Music by Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. April 17, 1865, May 27, 1866. 10 times.

5. Et Vintereventyr. Romantisk Skuespil i 5 Akter. Adapted from Shakespeare's _A Winter's Tale_ and Dinglestedt's _Ein Wintermärchen_ by H.P. Holst. Music by Flotow. May 4, 1866, March 21, 1893. 57 times.

6. Hamlet. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated by Foersom and Lembcke. March 4, 1870, April 27, 1883. 28 times.

7. Hun Maa Tæmmes. Lystspil i 4 Akter. Adapted from Shakespeare's _Taming of the Shrew_. March 21, 1858, April 12, 1881. 28 times.

8. Julius Caesar. Tragedie i 5 Akter af William Shakespeare. Translated by H. Lassen. March 22, 1887, April 22, 1887. 16 times.

9. Kjøbmanden i Venedig. Skuespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare. Adapted for the stage from Rahbek's translation. From the eighth performance (Oct. 14, 1874) probably in a new translation by Lembcke. Sept. 17, 1861, June 12, 1882. 23 times.

10. Kong Henrik Den Fjerde. Skuespil i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Adapted by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson from _King Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2_ in Lembcke's translation. Feb. 12, 1867, Feb. 8, 1885. 17 times.

11. Kong Richard III. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated by Lembcke. May 27, 1877, March 10, 1891. 26 times.

12. Kongens Læge. Romantisk Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Shakespeares _All's Well That Ends Well_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. From the thirteenth performance (May 23, 1869) given under the title _Naar Enden er god er Alting godt_ in a new translation by Edvard Lembcke. Jan. 5, 1854, Jan. 24, 1882. 20 times.

13. Livet i Skoven. Romantisk Lystspil i 4 Akter efter Shakespeares _As You Like It_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. Dec. 9, 1852, Sept. 25, 1878. 19 times.

14. Macbeth. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Schiller's version translated by Peter Foersom. Music by Weyse. July 28, 1844, Jan. 6, 1896. 37 times.

15. Othello, Moren af Venedig. Tragedie i 5 Akter af Shakespeare. Translated by P.L. Wulff. Jan. 3, 1845, March 10, 1872. 10 times.

16. Romeo og Julie. Tragedie i 5 Akter af W. Shakespeare. Translated by P. Foersom and A.E. Boye. From the sixth performance (April 4, 1880) probably in a new translation by Lembcke. Nov. 11, 1852, July 12, 1899. 42 times.

17. Viola. Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Shakespeare's _Twelfth Night_. Translated and adapted by Sille Beyer. From the thirteenth performance (Jan. 21, 1890) under the title _Helligtrekongersaften, eller hvad man vil_. (In Lembcke's translation with music by Catherinus Elling.) Nov. 20, 1860, May 31, 1891. 30 times.

II. Nationaltheatret.

The record of the Shakespearean performances at Nationaltheatret has been compiled from the summary of performances given in the decade 1899-1909 contained in _Beretning om Nationaltheatrets Virksomhed i Aaret 1909-1910_. Kristiania, 1910. The record of performances subsequent to 1910, as well as the date of the first performances of all plays, has been found in the Journal of the theater.

1. Helligtrekongersaften. (Twelfth Night). Oct. 5, 1899. 10 times.

2. Trold Kan Tæmmes. (The Taming of the Shrew.) Dec. 26, 1900. 35 times.

3. En Sommernats Dröm. (A Midsummer Night's Dream) Jan. 15, 1903. 20 times.

4. Kjöbmanden i Venedig. (The Merchant of Venice) Sept. 5, 1906. 20 times.

5. Hamlet. Oct. 31, 1907. 17 times.

6. Othello. Oct. 22, 1908. 12 times.

7. Henry IV. Feb. 10, 1910. 10 times.

8. As You Like It. Nov. 7, 1912. This play was still being given when the investigation ceased. Ten performances had been given.

_Bergen_

I. The First Theater in Bergen (1850-1863)

The information relating to Shakespeare at the old theater is gathered from T. Blanc: _Norges første nationale Scene. Bergen 1850-1863. Et Bidrag til den norske dramatiske Kunsts Historie. Kristiania, 1884_.

1. Livet I Skoven. Romantisk Skuespil i 4 Akter efter Shakespeares _As You Like It_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. Sept. 30 and Oct. 9, 1855. 2 times.

2. Viola. Lystspil i 5 Akter efter Deinhardsteins Bearbeidelse af Shakespeares _What You Will_. Adapted by Sille Beyer. July 17 and 18, 1861. 2 times.

II. The New Theater at Bergen (1876)

The following data have been communicated to me by Hr. Christian Landal, of the theater at Bergen. They have been compiled from the _Journal (Spillejournal)_ of the theater.

1. Kjöbmanden i Venedig (The Merchant of Venice) Oct. 9, 11, 13, 1878. Friday, June 18, 1880, the Shylock scenes, with Emil Paulsen (of the Royal Theater in Copenhagen) as guest. 4 times.

2. Et Vintereventyr. (A Winter's Tale) April 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 1880; May 9, 1880; Nov. 28, 29, 1889; Oct. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 1902. 18 times.

3. Othello. Nov. 13, 16, 18, 28, 1881. 4 times.

4. Hamlet. Nov. 28 and 29; Dec. 1, 5, 19, 1886. The Ophelia scenes from