The University of Chicago

 AN ESSAY TOWARD A HISTORY OF SHAKESPEARE IN NORWAY

 A Dissertation

 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Germanics and English by

 MARTIN BROWN RUUD

 Reprint from Scandinavian Studies and Notes Urbana, Illinois 1917

 The Collegiate Press George Banta Publishing Company Menasha, Wisconsin

 * * * * *

PREFATORY NOTE

I have attempted in this study to trace the history of Shakespeareantranslations, Shakespearean criticism, and the performances ofShakespeare's plays in Norway. I have not attempted to investigateShakespeare's influence on Norwegian literature. To do so would not, perhaps, be entirely fruitless, but it would constitute a differentkind of work. 

The investigation was made possible by a fellowship from the Universityof Chicago and a scholarship from the American-Scandinavian Foundation, and I am glad to express my gratitude to these bodies for theopportunities given to me of study in the Scandinavian countries. I am indebted for special help and encouragement to Dr. C. N. Gouldand Professor J. M. Manly, of the University of Chicago, and to theauthorities of the University library in Kristiania for their unfailingcourtesy. To my wife, who has worked with me throughout, my obligationsare greater than I can express. 

It is my plan to follow this monograph with a second on the history ofShakespeare in Denmark. 

M. B. R. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. September, 1916. 

CHAPTER I

Shakespeare Translations In Norway

A

In the years following 1750, there was gathered in the city of Trondhjema remarkable group of men: Nils Krog Bredal, composer of the firstDanish opera, John Gunnerus, theologian and biologist, Gerhart Schøning, rector of the Cathedral School and author of an elaborate history of thefatherland, and Peter Suhm, whose 14, 047 pages on the history of Denmarktestify to a learning, an industry, and a generous devotion toscholarship which few have rivalled. Bredal was mayor (Borgermester), Gunnerus was bishop, Schøning was rector, and Suhm was for the momentmerely the husband of a rich and unsympathetic wife. But they wereunited in their interest in serious studies, and in 1760, the lastthree--somewhat before Bredal's arrival--founded "Videnskabsselkabet iTrondhjem. " A few years later the society received its charter as "DetKongelige Videnskabsselskab. "

A little provincial scientific body! Of what moment is it? But in thosedays it was of moment. Norway was then and long afterwards the politicaland intellectual dependency of Denmark. For three hundred years she hadbeen governed more or less effectively from Copenhagen, and for twohundred years Danish had supplanted Norwegian as the language of churchand state, of trade, and of higher social intercourse. The country hadno university; Norwegians were compelled to go to Copenhagen for theirdegrees and there loaf about in the anterooms of ministers waiting forpreferment. Videnskabsselskabet was the first tangible evidence ofawakened national life, and we are not surprised to find that it was inthis circle that the demand for a separate Norwegian university wasfirst authoritatively presented. Again, a little group of periodicalssprang up in which were discussed, learnedly and pedantically, to besure, but with keen intelligence, the questions that were interestingthe great world outside. It is dreary business ploughing through thesesolemn, badly printed octavos and quartos. Of a sudden, however, onecomes upon the first, and for thirty-six years the only Norwegiantranslation of Shakespeare. 

We find it in _Trondhjems Allehaande_ for October 23, 1782--the thirdand last volume. The translator has hit upon Antony's funeral orationand introduces it with a short note:[1] "The following is taken fromthe famous English play _Julius Caesar_ and may be regarded as amasterpiece. When Julius Caesar was killed, Antonius secured permissionfrom Brutus and the other conspirators to speak at his funeral. Thepeople, whose minds were full of the prosperity to come, were satisfiedwith Caesar's murder and regarded the murderers as benefactors. Antoniusspoke so as to turn their minds from rejoicing to regret at a greatman's untimely death and so as to justify himself and win the hearts ofthe populace. And in what a masterly way Antonius won them! We shallrender, along with the oration, the interjected remarks of the crowd, inasmuch as they too are evidences of Shakespeare's understanding ofthe human soul and his realization of the manner in which the orationgradually brought about the purpose toward which he aimed:"

 [1. It has been thought best to give such citations for the most part in translation. ]

 Antonius: Venner, Medborgere, giver mig Gehør, jeg kommer for at jorde Cæsars Legeme, ikke for at rose ham. Det Onde man gjør lever endnu efter os; det Gode begraves ofte tilligemed vore Been. Saa Være det ogsaa med Cæsar. Den ædle Brutus har sagt Eder, Cæsar var herskesyg. Var han det saa var det en svær Forseelse: og Cæsar har ogsaa dyrt maattet bøde derfor. Efter Brutus og de Øvriges Tilladelse--og Brutus er en hederlig Mand, og det er de alle, lutter hederlige Mænd, kommer jeg hid for at holde Cæsars Ligtale. Han var min Ven, trofast og oprigtig mod mig! dog, Brutus siger, han var herskesyg, og Brutus er en hederlig Mand. Han har bragt mange Fanger med til Rom, hvis Løsepenge formerede de offentlige Skatter; synes Eder det herskesygt af Cæsar--naar de Arme skreeg, saa græd Cæsar--Herskesyge maate dog vel væves af stærkere Stof. --Dog Brutus siger han var herskesyg; og Brutus er en hederlig Mand. I have alle seet at jeg paa Pans Fest tre Gange tilbød ham en kongelig Krone, og at han tre Gange afslog den. Var det herskesygt?--Dog Brutus siger han var herskesyg, og i Sandhed, han er en hederlig Mand. Jeg taler ikke for at gjendrive det, som Brutus har sagt; men jeg staar her, for at sige hvad jeg veed. I alle elskede ham engang, uden Aarsag; hvad for en Aarsag afholder Eder fra at sørge over ham? O! Fornuft! Du er flyed hen til de umælende Bæster, og Menneskene have tabt deres Forstand. Haver Taalmodighed med mig; mit Hjerte er hist i Kisten hos Cæsar, og jeg maa holde inde til det kommer tilbage til mig. 

 Den Første af Folket: Mig synes der er megen Fornuft i hans Tale. 

 Den Anden af Folket: Naar du ret overveier Sagen, saa er Cæsar skeet stor Uret. 

 Den Tredje: Mener I det, godt Folk? Jeg frygter der vil komme slemmere i hans Sted. 

 Den Fjerde: Har I lagt Mærke til hvad han sagde? Han vilde ikke modtage Kronen, det er altsaa vist at han ikke var herskesyg. 

 Den Første: Hvis saa er, vil det komme visse Folk dyrt at staae. 

 Den Anden: Den fromme Mand! Hans Øien er blodrøde af Graad. 

 Den Tredje: Der er ingen fortræffeligere Mand i Rom end Antonius. 

 Den Fjerde: Giver Agt, han begynder igjen at tale. 

 Antonius: Endnu i Gaar havde et Ord af Cæsar gjældt imod hele Verden, nu ligger han der, endog den Usleste nægter ham Agtelse. O, I Folk! var jeg sindet, at ophidse Eders Gemytter til Raserie og Oprør, saa skulde jeg skade Brutus og Kassius, hvilke, som I alle veed, ere hederlige Mænd. Men jeg vil intet Ondt gjøre dem: hellere vil jeg gjøre den Døde, mig selv, og Eder Uret, end at jeg skulde volde slige hederlige Mænd Fortræd. Men her er et Pergament med Cæsars Segl: jeg fandt det i hans Kammer; det er hans sidste Villie. Lad Folket blot høre hans Testament, som jeg, tilgiv mig det, ikke tænker at oplæse, da skulde de alle gaa hen og kysse den døde Cæsars Saar; og dyppe deres Klæder i hans hellige Blod; skulde bede om et Haar af ham til Erindring, og paa deres Dødsdag i deres sidste Villie tænke paa dette Haar, og testamentere deres Efterkommere det som en rig Arvedel. 

 Den Fjerde: Vi ville høre Testamentet! Læs det, Marcus Antonius. 

 Antonius: Haver Taalmodighed, mine Venner: jeg tør ikke forelæse det; deter ikke raadeligt, at I erfare hvor kjær Cæsar havde Eder. I ere ikke Træe, I ere ikke Stene, I ere Mennesker; og da I ere Mennesker saa skulde Testamentet, om I hørte det, sætte Eder i Flamme, det skulde gjøre Eder rasende. Det er godt at I ikke vide, at I ere hans Arvinger; thi vidste I det, O, hvad vilde der da blive af?

 Den fjerde: Læs Testamentet; vi ville høre det, Antonius! Du maae læse Testamentet for os, Cæsars Testament!

 Antonius: Ville i være rolige? Ville I bie lidt? Jeg er gaaen for vidt at jeg har sagt Eder noget derom--jeg frygter jeg fornærmer de hederlige Mænd, som have myrdet Cæsar--jeg befrygter det. 

 Den Fjerde: De vare Forrædere!--ha, hederlige Mænd!

The translation continues to the point where the plebeians, roused tofury by the cunning appeal of Antony, rush out with the cries:[2]

 2. Pleb: Go fetch fire!

 3. Pleb: Plucke down Benches!

 2. Pleb: Plucke down Formes, Windowes, anything. 

 [2. _Julius Caesar_. III, 2. 268-70. Variorum Edition Furness. Phila. 1913. ]

But we have not space for a more extended quotation, and the passagegiven is sufficiently representative. 

The faults are obvious. The translator has not ventured to reproduceShakespeare's blank verse, nor, indeed, could that be expected. TheAlexandrine had long held sway in Danish poetry. In _Rolf Krage_ (1770), Ewald had broken with the tradition and written an heroic tragedy inprose. Unquestionably he had been moved to take this step by the exampleof his great model Klopstock in _Bardiete_. [3] It seems equally certain, however, that he was also inspired by the plays of Shakespeare, and thesongs of Ossian, which came to him in the translations of Wieland. [4]

 [3. Rønning--_Rationalismens Tidsalder_. 11-95. ]

 [4. Ewald--_Levnet og meninger_. Ed. Bobe. Kbhn. 1911, p. 166. ]

A few years later, when he had learned English and read Shakespearein the original, he wrote _Balders Død_ in blank verse andnaturalized Shakespeare's metre in Denmark. [5] At any rate, itis not surprising that this unknown plodder far north in Trondhjemhad not progressed beyond Klopstock and Ewald. But the result ofturning Shakespeare's poetry into the journeyman prose of a foreignlanguage is necessarily bad. The translation before us amounts to aparaphrase, --good, respectable Danish untouched by genius. Twoexamples will illustrate this. The lines:

 .... Now lies he there, And none so poor to do him reverence. 

 [5. _Ibid. _ II, 234-235. ]

are rendered in the thoroughly matter-of-fact words, appropriate for aletter or a newspaper "story":

 .... Nu ligger han der, endog den Usleste nægter ham Agtelse. 

Again, I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it, is translated:

 Jeg er gaaen for vidt at jeg sagde Eder noget derom. 

On the other hand, the translation presents no glaring errors; suchslips as we do find are due rather to ineptitude, an inability tofind the right word, with the result that the writer has contentedhimself with an accidental and approximate rendering. For example, the translator no doubt understood the lines:

 The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones. 

but he could hit upon nothing better than:

 Det Onde man gjør _lever endnu efter os_; det Gode begraves ofte tilligemed vore Been. 

which is both inaccurate and infelicitous. For the line

 He was my friend, faithful and just to me. 

our author has:

 Han var min Ven, trofast og _oprigtig_ mod mig!

Again:

 Has he, Masters? I fear there will come a worse in his place. 

Translation:

 Mener I det, godt Folk?--etc. 

Despite these faults--and many others could be cited, --it is perfectlyclear that this unknown student of Shakespeare understood his originaland endeavored to reproduce it correctly in good Danish. His veryblunders showed that he tried not to be slavish, and his style, whilenot remarkable, is easy and fluent. Apparently, however, his workattracted no attention. His name is unknown, as are his sources, andthere is not, with one exception, a single reference to him in the laterShakespeare literature of Denmark and Norway. Not even Rahbek, who wasremarkably well informed in this field, mentions him. Only Foersom, [6]who let nothing referring to Shakespeare escape him, speaks (in thenotes to Part I of his translation) of a part of Act III of _JuliusCaesar_ in _Trondhjems Allehaande_. That is all. It it not too much toemphasize, therefore, that we have here the first Danish version of anypart of _Julius Caesar_ as well as the first Norwegian translation ofany part of Shakespeare into what was then the common literary languageof Denmark and Norway. [7]

 [6. _William Shakespeares Tragiske Værker--Første Deel. _ Khbn. 1807. Notes at the back of the volume. ]

 [7. By way of background, a bare enumeration of the early Danish translations of Shakespeare is here given. 

 1777. _Hamlet_. Translated by Johannes Boye. 

 1790. _Macbeth_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. _Othello_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. _All's Well that Ends Well_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. 

 1792. _King Lear_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. _Cymbeline_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. _The Merchant of Venice_. Translated by Nils Rosenfeldt. 

 1794. _King Lear_. Nahum Tate's stage version. Translated by Hans Wilhelm Riber. 

 1796. _Two Speeches. _--To be or not to be--_(Hamlet. )_ Is this a dagger--_(Macbeth. )_ Translated by Malthe Conrad Brun in _Svada_. 

 1800. Act III, Sc. 2 of _Julius Caesar_. Translated by Knut Lyhne Rahbek in _Minerva_. 

 1801. _Macbeth_. Translated by Levin Sander and K. L. Rahbek. Not published till 1804. 

 1804. Act V of _Julius Caesar_. Translated by P. F. Foersom in _Minerva_. 

 1805. Act IV Sc. 3 of _Love's Labour Lost_. Translated by P. F. Foersom in _Nytaarsgave for Skuespilyndere. _

 1807. Hamlet's speech to the players. Translated by P. F. Foersom in _Nytaarsgave for Skuespilyndere_. 

 It may be added that in 1807 appeared the first volume of Foersom's translation of Shakespeare's tragedies, and after 1807 the history of Shakespeare in Denmark is more complicated. With these matters I shall deal at length in another study. ]

B

It was many years before the anonymous contributor to _TrondhjemsAllehaande_ was to have a follower. From 1782 to 1807 Norwegians wereengaged in accumulating wealth, an occupation, indeed, in which theywere remarkably successful. There was no time to meddle with Shakespearein a day when Norwegian shipping and Norwegian products were profitableas never before. After 1807, when the blundering panic of the Britishplunged Denmark and Norway into war on the side of Napoleon, there weresterner things to think of. It was a sufficiently difficult matter toget daily bread. But in 1818, when the country had, as yet, scarcelybegun to recover from the agony of the Napoleonic wars, the secondNorwegian translation from Shakespeare appeared. [8]

 [8. _Coriolanus, efter Shakespeare_. Christiania. 1818. ]

The translator of this version of _Coriolanus_ is unknown. Beyond thebare statement on the title page that the translation is made directlyfrom Shakespeare and that it is printed and published in Christiania byJacob Lehmann, there is no information to be had. Following the titlethere is a brief quotation from Dr. Johnson and one from the "Zeitungfür die elegante Welt. " Again Norway anticipates her sister nation; fornot till the following year did Denmark get her first translation of theplay. [9]

 [9. The first Danish translation of Coriolanus by P. F. Wulff appeared in 1819. ]

Ewald, Oehlenschlæger, and Foersom had by this time made the blank verseof Shakespeare a commonplace in Dano-Norwegian literature. Even themediocre could attempt it with reasonable assurance of success. The_Coriolanus_ of 1818 is fairly correct, but its lumbering verse revealsplainly that the translator had trouble with his metre. Two or threeexamples will illustrate. First, the famous allegory of Menenius:[10]

 _Menenius:_ I enten maae erkjende at I ere Heel ondskabsfulde, eller taale, man For Uforstandighed anklager Eder. Et snurrigt Eventyr jeg vil fortælle; Maaskee I har det hørt, men da det tjener Just til min Hensigt, jeg forsøge vil Nøiagtigen det Eder at forklare. . . . . . Jeg Eder det fortælle skal; med et Slags Smil, der sig fra Lungen ikke skrev; Omtrent saaledes--thi I vide maae Naar jeg kan lade Maven tale, jeg Den og kan lade smile--stikende Den svarede hvert misfornøiet Lem Og hver Rebel, som den misundte al Sin Indtægt; Saa misunde I Senatet Fordi det ikke er det som I ere. 

 _Første Borger_: Hvorledes. Det var Mavens Svar! Hvorledes? Og Hovedet, der kongeligt er kronet, Og Øiet, der er blot Aarvaagenhed; Og Hjertet, som os giver gode Raad; Og Tungen, vor Trumpet, vor Stridsmand, Armen, Og Foden, vores Pragthest, med de flere Befæstingner, der støtte vor Maskine, Hvis de nu skulde.... 

 _Menenius_: Nu hvad skulde de?... Den Karl mig lader ei til Orde komme, Hvad vil I sigte med det _hvis de skulde?_

 _Første Borger_: Hvis de nu skulde sig betvinge lade Ved denne Slughals Maven som blot er En Afløbs-Rende for vort Legeme?

 _Menenius_: Nu videre!

 _Første Borger_: Hvad vilde Maven svare? Hvis hine Handlende med Klage fremstod?

 _Menenius_: Hvis I mig skjænke vil det som I have Kun lidet af, Taalmodighed, jeg mener, Jeg Eder Mavens Svar da skal fortælle. 

 _Første Borger_: I! Den Fortælling ret i Langdrag trækker!

 _Menenius_: Min gode Ven, nu allerførst bemærke. Agtværdig Mave brugte Overlæg; Ei ubetænksom den sig overiled Som dens Modstandere; og saa lød Svaret: I Venner som fra mig ei skilles kan! Det Sandhed er, at jeg fra første Haand Modtager Næringen som Eder føder, Og dette i sin Orden er, thi jeg Et Varelager og et Forraads-Kammer Jo er for Legemet; men ei I glemme: Jeg Næringen igjennem Blodets Floder Og sender lige hen til Hoffet-Hjertet-- Til Hjernens Sæde; jeg den flyde lader Igjennem Menneskets meest fine Dele; Og de meest fast Nerver, som de mindste Blandt Aarene fra mig modtager hver Naturlig Kraft, hvormed de leve, og Endskjøndt de ikke alle paa eengang-- I gode Venner (det var Mavens Ord) Og mærker dem heel nøie.... 

 _Første Borger_: Det vil vi gjøre. 

 _Menenius_: Endskjøndt de ikke alle kunde see, Hvad jeg tilflyde lader hver især, Saa kan jeg dog med gyldigt Dokument Bevise at jeg overlader dem Den rene Kjærne, selv beholder Kliddet. Hvad siger I dertil?

 _Første Borger_: Et svar det var-- Men nu Andvendelsen!

 _Menenius_: Senatet er Den gode Mave: I Rebellerne. I undersøge blot de Raad det giver Og alt dets Omhue. Overveier nøie Alt hvad til Statens Velferd monne sigte, Og da I finde vil, at fra Senatet Hver offentlig Velgjerning som I nyde Sit Udspring bar, men ei fra Eder selv-- Hvad tænker I, som er den store Taae Her i Forsamlingen?

 [10. _Coriolanus_--Malone's ed. London. 1790. Vol. 7, pp. 148 ff. ]

Aside from the preponderance of feminine endings, which is inevitablein Scandinavian blank verse, what strikes us most in this translationis its laboriousness. The language is set on end. Inversion andtransposition are the devices by which the translator has managed togive Shakespeare in metrically decent lines. The proof of this is sopatent that I need scarcely point out instances. But take the firstseven lines of the quotation. Neither in form nor content is this bad, yet no one with a feeling for the Danish language can avoid anexclamation, "forskruet Stil" and "poetiske Stylter. " And lines 8-9smack unmistakably of _Peder Paars_. In the second place, the translatoroften does not attempt to translate at all. He gives merely aparaphrase. Compare lines 1-3 with the English original; the whole ofthe speech of the first citizen, 17-24, 25-27, where the whole impliedidea is fully expressed; 28-30, etc. , etc. We might offer almost everytranslation of Shakespeare's figures as an example. One more instance. At times even paraphrase breaks down. Compare

 And through the cranks and offices of man The strongest and small inferior veins, Receive from me that natural competency Whereby they live. 

with our translator's version (lines 50-51)

 jeg den flyde lader Igjennem Menneskets meest fine Dele. 

This is not even good paraphrase; it is simply bald and helplessrendering. 

On the other hand, it would be grossly unfair to dismiss it all witha sneer. The translator has succeeded for the most part in giving thesense of Shakespeare in smooth and sounding verse, in itself no smallachievement. Rhetoric replaces poetry, it is true, and paraphrase driesup the freshness and the sparkle of the metaphor. But a Norwegian ofthat day who got his first taste of Shakespeare from the translationbefore us, would at least feel that here was the power of words, themusic and sonorousness of elevated dramatic poetry. 

One more extract and I am done. It is Coriolanus' outburst of wrathagainst the pretensions of the tribunes (III, 1). With all itsimperfections, the translation is almost adequate. 

 _Coriolanus_: Skal! Patrisier, I ædle, men ei vise! I høie Senatorer, som mon mangle Al Overlæg, hvi lod I Hydra vælge En Tjener som med sit bestemte Skal --Skjøndt blot Uhyrets Talerør og Lyd-- Ei mangler Mod, at sige at han vil Forvandle Eders Havstrøm til en Sump, Og som vil gjøre Jer Kanal til sin. Hvis han har Magten, lad Enfoldighed Da for ham bukke; har han ingen Magt, Da vækker Eders Mildhed af sin Dvale, Den farlig er; hvis I ei mangle Klogskab, Da handler ei som Daaren; mangler den, Lad denne ved Jer Side faae en Pude. Plebeier ere I, hvis Senatorer De ere, og de ere mindre ei Naar begge Eders Stemmer sammenblandes Og naar de kildres meest ved Fornemhed. De vælge deres egen Øvrighed, Og saadan Een, der sætte tør sit Skal, Ja sit gemene Skal mod en Forsamling, Der mer agtværdig er end nogensinde Man fandt i Grækenland. Ved Jupiter! Sligt Consulen fornedrer! Og det smerter Min Sjæl at vide, hvor der findes tvende Autoriteter, ingen af dem størst, Der kan Forvirring lettelig faae Indpas I Gabet, som er mellem dem, og hæve Den ene ved den anden. 

C

In 1865, Paul Botten Hansen, best known to the English-speaking worldfor his relations with Bjørnson and Ibsen, reviewed[11] the eleventhinstallment of Lembcke's translation of Shakespeare. The articledoes not venture into criticism, but is almost entirely a resumé ofShakespeare translation in Norway and Denmark. It is less well informedthan we should expect, and contains, among several other slips, thefollowing "... In 1855, Niels Hauge, deceased the following year asteacher in Kragerø, translated _Macbeth_, the first faithful version ofthis masterpiece which Dano-Norwegian literature could boast of. " BottenHansen mentions only one previous Danish or Norwegian version ofShakespeare--Foersom's adaptation of Schiller's stage version (1816). He is quite obviously ignorant of Rosenfeldt's translation of 1790; andthe Rahbek-Sanders translation of 1801 seems also to have escaped him, although Hauge expressly refers to this work in his introduction. Bothof these early attempts are in prose; Foersom's, to be sure, is in blankverse, but Foersom's _Macbeth_ is not Shakespeare's. Accordingly, it is, in a sense, true that Hauge in 1855 did give the Dano-Norwegian publictheir first taste of an unspoiled _Macbeth_ in the vernacular. [12]

 [11. _Illustreret Nyhedsblad_--1865, p. 96. ]

 [12. _Macbeth--Tragedie i fem Akter af William Shakespeare_. Oversat og fortolket af N. Hauge. Christiania. 1855. Johan Dahl. ]

Hauge tells us that he had interested himself in English literature atthe risk of being called an eccentric. Modern languages then offered noavenue to preferment, and why, forsooth, did men attend lectures andtake examinations except to gain the means of earning a livelihood? Hejustifies his interest, however, by the seriousness and industry withwhich Shakespeare is studied in Germany and England. With the founts ofthis study he is apparently familiar, and with the influence ofShakespeare on Lessing, Goethe, and the lesser romanticists. It isinteresting to note, too, that two scholars, well known in widelydifferent fields, Monrad, the philosopher--for some years a sort of Dr. Johnson in the literary circles of Christiania--and Unger, the scholarlyeditor of many Old Norse texts, assisted him in his work. 

The character of Hauge's work is best seen in his notes. They consist ofa careful defense of every liberty he takes with the text, explanationsof grammatical constructions, and interpretations of debated matters. For example, he defends the witches on the ground that they symbolizethe power of evil in the human soul. 

 Man kan sige at Shakespeare i dem og deres Slæng har givet de nytestamentlige Dæmoner Kjød og Blod. 

(We may say that Shakespeare in them and their train has endowed thedemons of the New Testament with flesh and blood). Again, he wouldchange the word _incarnadine_ to _incarnate_ on the ground that _TwelfthNight V_ offers a similar instance of the corrupt use of _incardinate_for _incarnate_. The word occurs, moreover, in English only in thispassage. [13] Again, in his note to Act IV, he points out that thedialogue in which Malcolm tests the sincerity of Macduff is taken almostverbatim from Holinshed. "In performing the play, " he suggests, "itshould, perhaps, be omitted as it very well may be without injury to theaction since the complication which arises through Malcolm's suspicionof Macduff is fully and satisfactorily resolved by the appearance ofRosse. " And his note to a passage in Act V is interesting as showingthat, wide and thorough as was Hauge's acquaintance with Shakespeareancriticism, he had, besides, a first-hand knowledge of the minorElizabethan dramatists. I give the note in full. "_The way to dustydeath--_

 Til dette besynderlige Udtryk, kan foruden hvad Knight og Dyce have at citere, endnu citeres af Fords _Perkin Warbeck_, II, 2, "I take my leave to travel to my dust. "

 [13. This is, of course, incorrect. Cf. Macbeth, Variorum Edition. Ed. Furness. Phila. 1903, p. 40. Note. ]

Hauge was a careful and conscientious scholar. He knew his field andworked with the painstaking fidelity of the man who realizes thedifficulty of his task. The translation he gave is of a piece with theman--faithful, laborious, uninspired. But it is, at least, superior toRosenfeldt and Sander, and Hauge justified his work by giving to hiscountrymen the best version of _Macbeth_ up to that time. 

Monrad himself reviewed Hauge's _Macbeth_ in a careful and well-informedarticle, in _Nordisk Tidsskrift for Videnskab og Literatur_, which Ishall review later. 

D

One of the most significant elements in the intellectual life of modernNorway is the so-called Landsmaal movement. It is probably unnecessaryto say that this movement is an effort on the part of many Norwegians tosubstitute for the dominant Dano-Norwegian a new literary language basedon the "best" dialects. This language, commonly called the Landsmaal, is, at all events in its origin, the creation of one man, Ivar Aasen. Aasen published the first edition of his grammar in 1848, and the firstedition of his dictionary in 1850. But obviously it was not enough toprovide a grammar and a word-book. The literary powers of the newlanguage must be developed and disciplined and, accordingly, Aasenpublished in 1853 _Prøver af Landsmaalet i Norge_. The little volumecontains, besides other material, seven translations from foreignclassics; among these is Romeo's soliloquy in the balcony scene. [14](Act II, Sc. 1) This modest essay of Aasen's, then, antedates Hauge'srendering of _Macbeth_ and constitutes the first bit of Shakespearetranslation in Norway since the _Coriolanus_ of 1818. 

 [14. Ivar Aasen--_Skrifter i Samling_--Christiania. 1911, Vol. 11, p. 165. Reprinted from _Prøver af Landsmaalet i Norge, Første Udgave_. Kristiania. 1853, p. 114. ]

Aasen knew that Landsmaal was adequate to the expression of the homelyand familiar. But would it do for belles lettres?

 Han lær aat Saar, som aldri kende Saar. -- Men hyst!--Kvat Ljos er dat dar upp i glaset? Dat er i Aust, og Julia er Soli. Sprett, fagre Sol, og tyn dan Maane-Skjegla, som alt er sjuk og bleik av berre Ovund, at hennar Taus er fagrar' en ho sjølv. Ver inkje hennar Taus; dan Ovundsykja, so sjukleg grøn er hennar Jomfru-Klædnad; d'er berre Narr, som ber han. Sleng han av! Ja, d'er mi Fru, d'er dan eg held i Hugen; aa, giv ho hadde vist dat, at ho er dat! Ho talar, utan Ord. Kvat skal ho med dei? Ho tala kann med Augom;--eg vil svara. Eg er for djerv; d'er inkje meg ho ser paa, d'er tvo av fegste Stjernom dar paa Himlen, som gekk ei Ærend, og fekk hennar Augo te blinka i sin Stad, til dei kem atter. Enn um dei var dar sjølve Augo hennar. Kinn-Ljosken hennar hadde skemt dei Stjernor, som Dagsljos skemmer Lampen; hennar Augo hadd' straatt so bjart eit Ljos i Himmels Høgdi, at Fuglar song og Trudde, dat var Dag. Sjaa, kor ho hallar Kinni lint paa Handi, Aa, giv eg var ein Vott paa denne Handi at eg fekk strjuka Kinni den. --Ho talar. -- Aa tala meir, Ljos-Engel, med du lyser so klaart i denne Natti kring mitt Hovud, som naar dat kem ein utfløygd Himmels Sending mot Folk, som keika seg og stira beint upp med undrarsame kvit-snudd' Augo mot han, naar han skrid um dan seinleg-sigand' Skyi og sigler yver høge Himmels Barmen. 

It was no peasant jargon that Aasen had invented; it was a literarylanguage of great power and beauty with the dignity and fulness of anyother literary medium. But it was new and untried. It had no literature. Aasen, accordingly, set about creating one. Indeed, much of what hewrote had no other purpose. What, then, shall we say of the firstappearance of Shakespeare in "Ny Norsk"?

First, that it was remarkably felicitous. 

 Kinn-Ljosken hadde skemt dei Stjernor som Dagsljos skemmer Lampen, hennar Augo, etc. 

That is no inadequate rendering of:

 Two of the fairest stars in all the Heaven, etc. 

And equally good are the closing lines beginning:

 Aa tala meir, Ljos-Engel med du lyser, etc. 

Foersom is deservedly praised for his translation of the same lines, buta comparison of the two is not altogether disastrous to Aasen, though, to be sure, his lines lack some of Foersom's insinuating softness:

 Tal atter, Lysets Engel! thi du straaler i Natten saa høiherlig over mig som en af Nattens vingede Cheruber for dødeliges himmelvendte Øine, etc. 

But lines like these have an admirable and perfect loveliness:

 naar han skrid um dan seinleg-sigand' Skyi og sigler yver høge Himmels Barmen. 

Aasen busied himself for some years with this effort to naturalize hisLandsmaal in all the forms of literature. Apparently this was alwaysuppermost in his thoughts. We find him trying himself in this sort ofwork in the years before and after the publication of _Prøver afLandsmaalet_. In _Skrifter i Samling_ is printed another little fragmentof _Romeo and Juliet_, which the editor, without giving his reasons, assigns to a date earlier than that of the balcony scene. It isMercutio's description of Queen Mab (Act I, Sc. 4). This is decidedlymore successful than the other. The vocabulary of the Norwegian dialectsis rich in words of fairy-lore, and one who knew this word treasure asAasen did could render the fancies of Mercutio with something very nearthe exuberance of Shakespeare himself:

 No ser eg vel, at ho hev' vore hjaa deg ho gamle Mabba, Nærkona aat Vettom. So lita som ein Adelstein i Ringen paa fremste Fingren paa ein verdug Raadsmann, ho kjøyrer kring med smaa Soldumbe-Flokar paa Nasanna aat Folk, dan Tid dei søv. Hjulspikann' henna er av Kongleføter, Vognfelden er av Engjesprette-Vengjer, og Taumann' av den minste Kongleveven. Av Maanestraalanne paa Vatn er Selen, og av Sirissebein er Svipeskafted og Svipesnerten er av Agner smaa. Skjotskaren er eit nett graakjola My so stort som Holva av ein liten Mòl, som minste Vækja krasa kann med Fingren. Til Vogn ho fekk ei holut Haslenot av Snikkar Ikorn elder Natemakk, som altid var Vognmakarann' aat Vettom. [15]

 [15. Ivar Aasen: _Skrifter i Samling_. Christiania. 1911, Vol. I, p. 166. ]

The translation ends with Mercutio's words:

 And being thus frightened, swears a prayer or two, And sleeps again. 

In my opinion this is consummately well done--at once accurate andredolent of poesy; and certainly Aasen would have been justified infeeling that Landsmaal is equal to Shakespeare's most airy passages. Theslight inaccuracy of one of the lines:

 Av Maanestraalanne paa Vatn er Selen, for Shakespeare's:

 The colors of the moonshine's watery beams, is of no consequence. The discrepancy was doubtless as obvious to thetranslator as it is to us. 

From about the same time we have another Shakespeare fragment fromAasen's hand. Like the Queen Mab passage, it was not published till1911. [16] It is scarcely surprising that it is a rendering of Hamlet'ssoliloquy: "To be or not to be. " This is, of course, a more difficultundertaking. For the interests that make up the life of thepeople--their family and community affairs, their arts and crafts andfolk-lore, the dialects of Norway, like the dialects of any othercountry, have a vocabulary amazingly rich and complete. [17] But not allideas belong in the realm of the every-day, and the great difficulty ofthe Landsmaal movement is precisely this--that it must develop a"culture language. " To a large degree it has already done so. The restis largely a matter of time. And surely Ivar Aasen's translation of thefamous soliloquy proved that the task of giving, even to thought assophisticated as this, adequate and final expression is not impossible. The whole is worth giving:

 Te vera elder ei, --d'er da her spyrst um; um d'er meir heirlegt i sitt Brjost aa tola kvar Styng og Støyt av ein hardsøkjen Lagnad eld taka Vaapn imot eit Hav med Harmar, staa mot og slaa dei veg?--Te døy, te sova, alt fraa seg gjort, --og i ein Sømn te enda dan Hjarteverk, dei tusend timleg' Støytar, som Kjøt er Erving til, da var ein Ende rett storleg ynskjande. Te døy, te sova, ja sova, kanskje drøyma, --au, d'er Knuten. Fyr' i dan Daudesømn, kva Draum kann koma, naar mid ha kastat av dei daudleg Bandi, da kann vel giv' oss Tankar; da er Sakji, som gjerer Useldom so lang i Livet: kven vilde tolt slikt Hogg og Haad i Tidi, slik sterk Manns Urett, stolt Manns Skamlaus Medferd, slik vanvyrd Elskhugs Harm, slik Rettarløysa, slikt Embæt's Ovmod, slik Tilbakaspenning, som tolug, verdug Mann fær av uverdug; kven vilde da, naar sjølv han kunde løysa seg med ein nakjen Odd? Kven bar dan Byrda so sveitt og stynjand i so leid ein Livnad, naar inkj'an ottast eitkvart etter Dauden, da uforfarne Land, som ingjen Ferdmann er komen atter fraa, da viller Viljen, da læt oss helder ha dan Naud, mid hava, en fly til onnor Naud, som er oss ukjend. So gjer Samviskan Slavar av oss alle, so bi dan fyrste, djerve, bjarte Viljen skjemd ut med blakke Strik av Ettertankjen og store Tiltak, som var Merg og Magt i, maa soleid snu seg um og strøyma ovugt og tapa Namn av Tiltak. 

 [16. _Skrifter i Samling_, I, 168. Kristiania. 1911. ]

 [17. Cf. Alf Torp. _Samtiden_, XIX (1908), p. 483. ]

This is a distinctly successful attempt--exact, fluent, poetic. Compareit with the Danish of Foersom and Lembcke, with the Swedish of Hagberg, or the new Norwegian "Riksmaal" translation, and Ivar Aasen's earlyLandsmaal version holds its own. It keeps the right tone. The dignity ofthe original is scarcely marred by a note of the colloquial. Scarcelymarred! 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 morewill object to the colloquial "Au, d'er Knuten. " _Au_ has no place indignified verse, and surely it is a most unhappy equivalent for "Ay, there's the rub. " Aasen would have replied that Hamlet's words arethemselves colloquial; but the English conveys no such connotation ofeasy speech as does the Landsmaal to a great part of the Norwegianpeople. But this is a trifle. The fact remains that Aasen gave a nobleform to Shakespeare's noble verse. 

E

For many years the work of Hauge and Aasen stood alone in Norwegianliterature. The reading public was content to go to Denmark, and thegrowing Landsmaal literature was concerned with other matters--first ofall, with the task of establishing itself and the even more complicatedproblem of finding a form--orthography, syntax, and inflexions whichshould command general acceptance. For the Landsmaal of Ivar Aasen wasfrankly based on "the best dialects, " and by this he meant, of course, the dialects that best preserved the forms of the Old Norse. These werethe dialects of the west coast and the mountains. To Aasen the speech ofthe towns, of the south-east coast and of the great eastern valleys anduplands was corrupt and vitiated. It seemed foreign, saturated andspoiled by Danish. There were those, however, who saw farther. IfLandsmaal was to strike root, it must take into account not merely "thepurest dialects" but the speech of the whole country. It could not, forexample, retain forms like "dat, " "dan, " etc. , which were peculiar toSøndmør, 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 uponthis subject; we can but point out that this movement was born almostwith Landsmaal itself, and that, after Aasen's fragments, the firstNorwegian translation of any part of Shakespeare is a rendering ofSonnet CXXX in popularized Eastern, as distinguished from Aasen'sliterary, aristocratic Western Landsmaal. It is the first translation ofa Shakespearean sonnet on Norwegian soil. The new language was hewingout 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 translatorignore Shakespeare's rime scheme, but he sets aside the elementarydefinition of a sonnet--a poem of fourteen lines. We have here sixteenlines and the last two add nothing to the original. The poet, throughlack of skill, has simply run on. He could have ended with line 14 andthen, whatever other criticism might have been passed upon his work, weshould have had at least the sonnet form. The additional lines are inthemselves fairly good poetry but they have no place in what purports tobe translation. The translator signs himself simply "r. " Whoever he was, he had poetic feeling and power of expression. No mere poetaster couldhave given lines so exquisite in their imagery, so full of music, andso happy in their phrasing. This fact in itself makes it a poortranslation, for it is rather a paraphrase with a quality and excellenceall its own. Not a line exactly renders the English. The paraphrase isnever so good as the original but, considered by itself, it is goodpoetry. The disillusionment comes only with comparison. On the whole, this second attempt to put Shakespeare into Landsmaal was distinctlyless successful than the first. As poetry it does not measure up toAasen; as translation it is periphrastic, arbitrary, not at allfaithful. 

F

The translations which we have thus far considered were merefragments--brief soliloquies or a single sonnet, and they were done intoa dialect which was not then and is not now the prevailing literarylanguage of the country. They were earnest and, in the case of Aasen, successful attempts to show that Landsmaal was adequate to the mostvaried and remote of styles. But many years were to elapse before anyoneattempted the far more difficult task of turning any considerable partof Shakespeare into "Modern Norwegian. "

Norway still relied, with no apparent sense of humiliation, on thetranslations of Shakespeare as they came up from Copenhagen. In 1881, however, Hartvig Lassen (1824-1897) translated _The Merchant ofVenice_. [19] Lassen matriculated as a student in 1842, and from 1850supported himself as a literateur, writing reviews of books and playsfor _Krydseren_ and _Aftenposten_. In 1872 he was appointed ArtisticCensor at the theater, and in that office translated a multitude ofplays from almost every language of Western Europe. His publishedtranslations of Shakespeare are, however, quite unrelated to histheatrical work. They were done for school use and published by_Selskabet for Folkeoplysningens Fremme_ (Society for the Promotionof 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--merelya postscript in which the translator declares that he has endeavoredeverywhere faithfully to reproduce the peculiar tone of the play and topreserve the concentration of style which is everywhere characteristicof Shakespeare. He acknowledges his indebtedness to the Swedishtranslation by Hagberg and the German by Schlegel. Inasmuch as this workwas published for wide, general distribution and for reading in theschools, Lassen cut out the passages which he deemed unsuitable for theuntutored mind. "But, " he adds, "with the exception of the last scene ofAct III, which, in its expurgated form, would be too fragmentary (andwhich, indeed, does not bear any immediate relation to the action), onlya few isolated passages have been cut. Shakespeare has lost next tonothing, and a great deal has been gained if I have hereby removed oneground for the hesitation which most teachers would feel in using thebook 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 mostcursory reading will show that he had Lembcke at hand. But comparisonwill also show that variations from Lembcke are numerous andconsiderable. Lassen was a man of letters, a critic, and a good studentof foreign languages, but he was no poet, and his _Merchant of Venice_is, generally speaking, much inferior to Lembcke's. Compare, forexample, 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 outnightyou. " Lassen, though never grossly inaccurate, allows himself greaterliberties. Compare lines 2-6 with the original and with Lembcke. Inevery case the Danish version is more faithful than the Norwegian. Andmore mellifluous. Why Lassen should choose such clumsy and banal linesas:

 I slig en Nat Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg

when he could have used Lembcke's, is inexplicable except on thehypothesis that he was eager to prove his own originality. The remainderof Lorenzo's first speech is scarcely better. It is neither goodtranslation nor decent verse. 

In 1882 came Lassen's _Julius Caesar_, [20] likewise published as asupplement to _Folkevennen_ for use in the schools. A short postscripttells us that the principles which governed in the translation of theearlier play have governed here also. Lassen specifically declares thathe used Foersom's translation (Copenhagen, 1811) as the basis for thetranslation of Antony's oration. A comparison shows that in this sceneLassen follows Foersom closely--he keeps archaisms which Lembckeamended. 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 Casca gjorde. Her rammed den høielskte Bruti Dolk, etc. 

 [20. _Julius Caesar_. Et Skuespil af William Shakespeare. Oversat af Hartvig Lassen. Udgivet af Selskabet for Folkeoplysningens Fremme som første Tillægshefte til _Folkevennen_ for 1882. Kristiania, 1882. Grøndal og Søn. ]

For the rest, a reading of this translation leaves the same impressionas a reading of _The Merchant of Venice_--it is a reasonably goodpiece of work but distinctly inferior to Foersom and to Lembcke'smodernization of Foersom. Lassen clearly had Lembcke at hand; he seldom, however, followed him for more than a line or two. What is moreimportant is that there are reminiscences of Foersom not only inthe funeral scene, where Lassen himself acknowledges the fact, butelsewhere. Note a few lines from the quarrel between Brutus and Cassius(Act IV, Sc. 3) beginning with Cassius' speech:

 Urge me no more, I shall forget myself. 

Foersom (Ed. 1811) has:

 _Cas_: Tir mig ei mer at jeg ei glemmer mig; husk Eders Vel--og frist mig ikke mere. 

 _Bru_: Bort, svage Mand!

 _Cas_: Er dette muligt?

 _Bru_: Hør mig; jeg vil tale. Skal jeg for Eders vilde Sind mig bøie? Troer I jeg kyses af en gal Mands Blik?

 _Cas_: O Guder, Guder! skal jeg taale dette?

 _Bru_: Ja, meer. Brum saa dette stolte Hierte brister; Gak, viis den Hæftighed for Eders Trælle, og faa dem til at skielve. Skal jeg vige, og føie Eder? Skal jeg staae og bøie mig under Eders Luners Arrighed? Ved Guderne, I skal nedsvælge selv al Eders Galdes Gift, om end I brast; thi fra i dag af bruger jeg Jer kun til Moerskab, ja til latter naar I vredes. 

And Lassen has:

_Cas_: _Tirr_ mig ei mer; jeg kunde glemme mig. Tænk paa dit eget Vel, frist mig ei længer. 

 _Bru_: _Bort, svage Mand_!

 _Cas_: Er dette muligt?

 _Bru_: Hør mig, jeg vil tale. Skal jeg _mig bøie_ for din Vredes Nykker? Og skræmmes, naar en gal Mand glor paa mig?

 _Cas_: O Guder, Guder! maa jeg taale dette?

 _Bru_: Dette, ja mer end det. Stamp kun mod Brodden, ras kun, indtil dit stolte Hjerte brister; lad dine Slaver se hvor arg du er og _skjelve_. Jeg--skal jeg tilside smutte? Jeg gjøre Krus for dig? Jeg krumme Ryg naar det behager dig? Ved Guderne! Du selv skal _svælge_ al din _Galdes Gift_, om saa du brister; thi fra denne Dag jeg bruger dig til Moro, ja til Latter, naar du er ilsk. 

The _italicized_ passages show that the influence of Foersom was feltin more than one scene. It would be easy to give other instances. 

After all this, we need scarcely more than mention Lassen's_Macbeth_[21] published in 1883. The usual brief note at the end of theplay gives the usual information that, out of regard for the purpose forwhich the translation has been made, certain parts of the porter sceneand certain speeches by Malcolm in Act IV, Sc. 3 have been cut. Readerswill have no difficulty in picking them out. 

 [21. _Macbeth_. Tragedie af William Shakespeare. Oversat af H. Lassen. Udgivet af Selskabet for Folkeoplysningens Fremme som andet Tillægshefte til _Folkevennen_ for 1883. Kristiania. Grøndal og Søn. ]

_Macbeth_ is, like all Lassen's work, dull and prosaic. Like his othertranslations from Shakespeare, it has never become popular. The standardtranslation in Norway is still the Foersom-Lembcke, a triflenationalized with Norwegian words and phrases whenever a new actingversion is to be prepared. And while it is not true that Lassen'stranslations are merely norvagicized editions of the Danish, it is truethat they are often so little independent of them that they do notdeserve to supersede the work of Foersom and Lembcke. 

G

Norwegian translations of Shakespeare cannot, thus far, be calleddistinguished. There is no complete edition either in Riksmaal orLandsmaal. A few sonnets, a play or two, a scrap of dialogue--Norwayhas little Shakespeare translation of her own. Qualitatively, the caseis somewhat better. Several of the renderings we have considered areextremely creditable, though none of them can be compared with thebest in Danish or Swedish. It is a grateful task, therefore, to callattention to the translations by Christen Collin. They are notnumerous--only eleven short fragments published as illustrative materialin his school edition (English text) of _The Merchant of Venice_--[22]but they are of notable quality, and they save the Riksmaal literaturefrom the reproach of surrendering completely to the Landsmaal the taskof turning Shakespeare into Norwegian. With the exception of a few linesfrom _Macbeth_ and _Othello_, the selections are all from _The Merchantof Venice_. 

 [22. _The Merchant of Venice_. Med Indledning og Anmærkninger ved Christen Collin. Kristiania. 1902. (This, of course, does not include the translations of the sonnets referred to below. )]

A good part of Collin's success must be attributed to his intimatefamiliarity with English. The fine nuances of the language do not escapehim, and he can use it not with precision merely but with audacity andpower. Long years of close and sympathetic association with theliterature of England has made English well-nigh a second mother tongueto this fine and appreciative critic. But he is more than a critic. Hehas more than a little of the true poet's insight and the true poet'sgift of song. All this has combined to give us a body of translationswhich, for fine felicity, stand unrivalled in Dano-Norwegian. Many ofthese have been prepared for lecture purposes and have never beenprinted. [23] Only a few have been perpetuated in this text edition of_The Merchant of Venice_. We shall discuss the edition itself below. Our concern here is with the translations. We remember Lassen's andLembcke's opening of the fifth act. Collin is more successful than hiscountryman. 

 _Lor_: Hvor Maanen straaler! I en nat som denne, da milde vindpust kyssed skovens trær og alting var saa tyst, i slig en nat Troilus kanske steg op paa Trojas mure og stønned ud sin sjæl mod Grækerteltene hvor Cressida laa den nat. 

 _Jes_: I slig en nat kom Thisbe angstfuldt trippende over duggen, -- saa løvens skygge, før hun saa den selv, og løb forskrækket bort. 

 _Lor_: I slig en nat stod Dido med en vidjekvist i haand paa havets strand og vinkede Æneas tilbage til Karthago. 

 _Jes_: I slig en nat Medea sanked urter som foryngede den gamle Æsons liv. 

 _Lor_: I slig en nat stjal Jessica sig fra den rige Jøde med en forfløien elsker fra Venedig og fandt i Belmont ly. 

 _Jes_: I en saadan nat svor ung Lorenzo at hun var ham kjær og stjal med mange eder hendes hjerte, men ikke en var sand. 

 _Lor_: I slig en nat skjøn Jessica, den lille heks, bagtalte sin elsker og han--tilgav hende alt. 

 [23. I have seen these translations in the typewritten copies which Professor Collin distributed among his students. ]

"A translation of this passage, " says Collin, [24] "can hardly be morethan an approximation, but its inadequacy will only emphasize thebeauty of the original. " Nevertheless we have here more than a feebleapproximation. It is not equal to Shakespeare, but it is good Norwegianpoetry and as faithful as translation can or need be. It is difficult torefrain from giving Portia's plea for mercy, but I shall give insteadCollin's striking rendering of Shylock's arraignment of Antonio:[25]

 Signor Antonio, mangen en gang og tit har paa Rialto torv I skjældt mig ud for mine pengelaan og mine renter.... Jeg bar det med taalmodigt skuldertræk, for taalmod er jo blit vor stammes merke. 

 I kalder mig en vantro, blodgrisk _hund_ og spytter paa min jødiske gaberdin-- hvorfor? for brug af hvad der er mit eget! Nu synes det, I trænger til min hjælp. 

 Nei virkelig? I kommer nu til mig og siger: Shylock, laan os penge, --I, som slængte eders slim hen paa mit skjæg og satte foden paa mig, som I spændte, en kjøter fra Jer dør, I be'r om penge! Hvad skal jeg svare vel? Skal jeg 'ke svare: Har en hund penge? Er det muligt, at en kjøter har tre tusinde dukater? Eller skal jeg bukke dybt og i trælletone med sænket røst og underdanig hvisken formæle: "Min herre, I spytted paa mig sidste onsdag, en anden dag I spændte mig, en tredje I kaldte mig en hund; for al den artighed jeg laaner Jer saa og saa mange penge?"

 [24. Collin, _op. Cit. _, _Indledning_, XII. ]

 [25. Collin, _op. Cit. _, _Indledning_, XXVI. (_M. Of V. _, 1-3)]

It is to be regretted that Collin did not give us Shylock's still moreimpassioned outburst to Salarino in Act III. He would have done it well. 

It would be a gracious task to give more of this translator's work. Itis, slight though its quantity, a genuine contribution to the body ofexcellent translation literature of the world. I shall quote but onemore passage, a few lines from _Macbeth_. [26]

 "Det tyktes mig som hørte jeg en røst; Sov aldrig mer! Macbeth har myrdet søvnen, den skyldfri søvn, som løser sorgens floke, hvert daglivs død, et bad for mødig møie, balsam for sjælesaar og alnaturens den søde efterret, --dog hovednæringen ved livets gjæstebud.... 

 _Lady Macbeth_: Hvad er det, du mener?

 _Macbeth_: "Sov aldrig mer, " det skreg til hele huset. Glarais har myrdet søvnen, derfor Cawdor skal aldrig mer faa søvn, --Macbeth, Macbeth skal aldrig mer faa søvn!"

 [26. Collin, _op. Cit. _, _Indledning_, XXV. _Macbeth_ II, 1. ]

H

We have hitherto discussed the Norwegian translations of Shakespeare inalmost exact chronological order. It has been possible to do thisbecause the plays have either been translated by a single man and issuedclose together, as in the case of Hartvig Lassen, or they have appearedseparately from the hands of different translators and at widelydifferent periods. We come now, however, to a group of translationswhich, although the work of different men and published independentlyfrom 1901 to 1912, nevertheless belong together. They are all inLandsmaal and they represent quite clearly an effort to enrich theliterature of the new dialect with translations from Shakespeare. To dothis successfully would, obviously, be a great gain. The Maalstræverewould thereby prove the capacity of their tongue for the highest, mostexotic forms of literature. They would give to it, moreover, thediscipline which the translation of foreign classics could not fail toafford. It was thus a renewal of the missionary spirit of Ivar Aasen. And behind it all was the defiant feeling that Norwegians should haveShakespeare in Norwegian, not in Danish or bastard Danish. 

The spirit of these translations is obvious enough from the openingsentence of Madhus' preface to his translation of _Macbeth_:[27]"I should hardly have ventured to publish this first attempt at aNorwegian translation of Shakespeare if competent men had not urged meto do so. " It is frankly declared to be the first Norwegian translationof Shakespeare. Hauge and Lassen, to say nothing of the translator of1818, are curtly dismissed from Norwegian literature. They belong toDenmark. This might be true if it were not for the bland assumptionthat nothing is really Norwegian except what is written in the dialectof a particular group of Norwegians. The fundamental error of the"Maalstrævere" is the inability to comprehend the simple fact thatlanguage has no natural, instinctive connection with race. An Americanborn in America of Norwegian parents _may_, if his parents are energeticand circumstances favorable, learn the tongue of his father and mother, but his natural speech, the medium he uses easily, his realmother-tongue, will be English. Will it be contended that this Americanhas lost anything in spiritual power or linguistic facility? Quite thecontrary. The use of Danish in Norway has had the unfortunate effect ofstirring up a bitter war between the two literary languages or the twodialects of the same language, but it has imposed no bonds on theliterary or intellectual powers of a large part of the people, for thesimple reason that these people have long used the language as theirown. And because they live in Norway they have made the speechNorwegian. Despite its Danish origin, Dano-Norwegian is today as trulyNorwegian as any other Norwegian dialect, and in its literary form itis, in a sense, more Norwegian than the literary Landsmaal, for thelanguage of Bjørnson has grown up gradually on Norwegian soil; thelanguage of Ivar Aasen is not yet acclimatized. 

 [27. William Shakespeare: _Macbeth_. I norsk Umskrift ved Olav Madhus. Kristiania. 1901. H. Aschehoug & Co. ]

For these reasons it will not do to let Madhus' calm assertion gounchallenged. The fact is that to a large part of the Norwegian peopleLassen's translations represent merely a slightly Danicized form oftheir own language, while to the same people the language of Madhus isat least as foreign as Swedish. This is not the place for a discussionof "Sprogstriden. " We may give full recognition to Landsmaal withoutsubscribing to the creed of enthusiasts. And it is still easier to givecredit to the excellence of the Shakespeare translations in Landsmaalwithout concerning ourselves with the partisanship of the translator. What shall we say, then, of the _Macbeth_ of Olav Madhus?

First, that it is decidedly good. The tragedy of Macbeth is stark, grim, stern, and the vigorous, resonant Norwegian fits admirably. There islittle opportunity, as in Aasen's selections from _Romeo and Juliet_ forthose unfortunate contrasts between the homespun of the modern dialectand the exquisite silk and gossamer of the vocabulary of romance ofa "cultured language. " Madhus has been successful in rendering intoLandsmaal scenes as different as the witch-scene, the porter-scene(which Lassen omitted for fear it would contaminate the minds of schoolchildren), the exquisite lines of the King and Banquo on their arrivalat Macbeth's castle, and Macbeth's last, tragic soliloquy when he learnsof the death of his queen. 

Duncan and Banquo arrive at the castle of Macbeth and Duncan speaksthose lovely lines: "This castle has a pleasant seat, " etc. Madhustranslates:

 _Duncan_: Ho hev eit fagert lægje, denne borgi, og lufti lyar seg og gjer seg smeiki aat vaare glade sansar. 

 _Banquo_: Sumar-gjesten, den tempel-kjære svala, vitnar med, at himlens ande blakrar smeikin her, med di at ho so gjerne her vil byggje. Det finst kje sule eller takskjeggs livd og ikkje voll hell vigskar, der ei ho hev hengt si lette seng og barne-vogge. Der ho mest bur og bræer, hev eg merkt meg, er lufti herleg. 

This is as light and luminous as possible. Contrast it with the slow, solemn tempo of the opening of Act I, Sc. 7--Macbeth's "If it were donewhen 'tis done, " etc. 

 Um det var gjort, naar d'er gjort, var det væl, um det vart snart gjort; kunde løynmordsverke, stengje og binde alle vonde fylgdir og, med aa faa hurt honom, naa sitt maal, so denne eine støyten som maa til, vart enden, alt, det siste som det fyrste i tidi her--den havsens øyr og bode me sit paa no--, --med live som kjem etter det fekk daa vaage voni. Men i slikt vert domen sagd alt her. Blodtankane, me el, kjem vaksne att og piner oss, som gav deim liv og fostra deim; og drykken, som me hev blanda eiter i aat andre, vert eingong uta miskunn bodin fram av rettferds hand aat vaare eigne munnar. 

The deep tones of a language born in mountains and along fjords finelyre-echo the dark broodings in Macbeth's soul. 

Or take still another example, the witch-scene in Act IV. It opens inMadhus' version:

 _Fyrste Heks_: Tri gong mjava brandut katt. 

 _Andre Heks_: Tri og ein gong bust-svin peip. 

 _Tridje Heks_: Val-ramn skrik. D'er tid, d'er tid. 

 _Fyrste Heks_: Ring um gryta gjeng me tri; sleng forgiftigt seid--mang i. Gyrme-gro, som under stein dagar tredive og ein sveita eiter, lat og leid, koke fyrst i vaaro seid. 

 _Alle_: Tvifaldt træl og møda duble; brand frase, seid buble!

 _Andre Heks_: Møyrkjøt av ein myr-orm kald so i gryta koke skal. Ødle-augo, skinnveng-haar, hundetunge, froskelaar, slève-brodd, firfisle-svórd, ule-veng og lyngaal-spórd til eit seid som sinn kann rengje hèl-sodd-heitt seg saman mengje!

This is not only accurate; it is a decidedly successful imitation of themovement of the original. Madhus has done a first-rate piece of work. The language of witch-craft is as international as the language ofscience. But only a poet can turn it to poetic use. 

Not quite so successful is Macbeth's soliloquy when the death of LadyMacbeth is announced to him:

 Det skuld'ho drygt med. Aat slikt eit ord var komi betre stund. -- "I morgo" og "i morgo" og "i morgo, " slik sig det smaatt fram etter, dag for dag, til siste ord i livsens sogubok; og kvart "i gaar" hev daarer vegen lyst til dust og daude. 

It is difficult to say just where the fault lies, but the thing seemsuncouth, a trifle too colloquial and peasant-like. The fault may be thetranslator's, but something must also be charged to his medium. Thepassage in Shakespeare is simple but it breathes distinction. TheLandsmaal version is merely colloquial, even banal. One fine linethere is:

 "til siste ord i livsens sogubok. "

But the rest suggests too plainly the limitations of an uncultivatedspeech. 

In 1905 came a translation of _The Merchant of Venice_ by Madhus, [28]and, uniform with it, a little book--_Soga um Kaupmannen i Venetia_ (TheStory of The Merchant of Venice) in which the action of the play is toldin simple prose. In the appendatory notes the translator acknowledgeshis obligation to Arne Garborg--"Arne Garborg hev gjort mig framifraagod hjelp, her som med _Macbeth_. Takk og ære hev han. "

 [28. William Shakespeare--_Kaupmannen i Venetia_. Paa Norsk ved Olav Madhus. Oslo. 1905. ]

What we have said of _Macbeth_ applies with no less force here. Thetranslation is more than merely creditable--it is distinctly good. Andcertainly it is no small feat to have translated Shakespeare in all hisrichness and fulness into what was only fifty years ago a rustic anduntrained dialect. It is the best answer possible to the charge oftenmade against Landsmaal that it is utterly unable to convey the subtlethought of high and cosmopolitan culture. This was the indictment ofBjørnson, [29] of philologists like Torp, [30] and of a literary criticlike Hjalmar Christensen. [31] The last named speaks repeatedly of thefeebleness of Landsmaal when it swerves from its task of depictingpeasant life. His criticism of the poetry of Ivar Mortensen is one longvariation of this theme--the immaturity of Landsmaal. All of this istrue. A finished literary language, even when its roots go deep into aspoken language, cannot be created in a day. It must be enriched andelaborated, and it must gain flexibility from constant and varied use. It is precisely this apprentice stage that Landsmaal is now in. Thefinished "Kultursprache" will come in good time. No one who has readGarborg will deny that it can convey the subtlest emotions; and Madhus'translations of Shakespeare are further evidence of its possibilities. 

 [29. Bjørnson: _Vort Sprog_. ]

 [30. Torp. _Samtiden_, Vol. XIX (1908), p. 408. ]

 [31. _Vor Literatur_. ]

That Madhus does not measure up to his original will astonish no onewho knows Shakespeare translations in other languages. Even Tieck'sand Schlegel's German, or Hagberg's Swedish, or Foersom's Danish is nosubstitute for Shakespeare. Whether or not Madhus measures up to theseis not for me to decide, but I feel very certain that he will not sufferby comparison with the Danish versions by Wolff, Meisling, Wosemose, oreven Lembcke, or with the Norwegian versions of Hauge and Lassen. Thefeeling that one gets in reading Madhus is not that he is uncouth, stillless inaccurate, but that in the presence of great imaginative richnesshe becomes cold and barren. We felt it less in the tragedy of _Macbeth_, where romantic color is absent; we feel it strongly in _The Merchant ofVenice_, where the richness of romance is instinct in every line. Theopening of the play offers a perfect illustration. In answer toAntonio's complaint "In sooth I know not why I am so sad, " etc, Salarinoreplies in these stately and sounding lines:

 Your mind is tossing on the ocean; There, where your argosies, with portly sail, -- Like signiors and rich burghers of the flood, Or, as it were, the pageants of the sea, -- Do overpeer the petty traffickers That curt'sy to them, do them reverence, As they fly by them with their woven wings. 

The picture becomes very much less stately in Norwegian folk-speech:

 Paa storehave huskar hugen din, der dine langferd-skip med staute segl som hovdingar og herremenn paa sjø i drusteferd, aa kalle, gagar seg paa baara millom kræmarskutur smaa', som nigjer aat deim og som helsar audmjukt naar dei med vovne vengir framum stryk. 

The last two lines are adequate, but the rest has too much the flavor ofOle and Peer discussing the fate of their fishing-smacks. Somewhat moresuccessful is the translation of the opening of Act V, doubtless becauseit is simpler, less full of remote and sophisticated imagery. By way ofcomparison with Lassen and Collin, it may be interesting to have it athand. 

 _Lor_: Ovfagert lyser maanen. Slik ei natt, daa milde vindar kysste ljuve tre so lindt at knapt dei susa, slik ei natt steig Troilus upp paa Troja-murane og sukka saali si til Greklands telt, der Kressida laag den natti. 

 _Jes_: Slik ei natt gjekk Thisbe hugrædd yvi doggvaat voll og løveskuggen saag fyrr løva kom; og rædd ho der-fraa rømde. 

 _Lor_: Slik ei natt stod Dido med ein siljutein i hand paa villan strand og vinka venen sin tilbake til Kartago. 

 _Jes_: Slik ei natt Medea trolldoms-urtir fann, til upp aa yngje gamle Æson. 

 _Lor_: Slik ei natt stal Jessika seg ut fraa judens hus og med ein fark til festarmann for av so langt som hit til Belmont. 

 _Jes_: Slik ei natt svor ung Lorenso henne elskhugs eid og hjarta hennar stal med fagre ord som ikkje aatte sanning. 

 _Lor_: Slik ei natt leksa ven' Jessika som eit lite troll upp for sin kjærst, og han tilgav ho. 

 _Jes_: I natteleik eg heldt nok ut med deg, um ingin kom; men hyss, eg høyrer stig. 

But when Madhus turns from such flights of high poetry to low comedy, his success is complete. It may be a long time before Landsmaal cansuccessfully render the mighty line of Marlowe, or the manifold music ofShakespeare, but we should expect it to give with perfect verity thelanguage of the people. And when we read the scenes in which LancelotGobbo figures, there is no doubt that here Landsmaal is at home. Note, for example, Act II, Sc. 1:

 "Samvite mitt vil visst ikkje hjelpe meg med aa røme fraa denne juden, husbond min. Fenden stend her attum òlbogen min og segjer til meg: "Gobbo, Lanselot Gobbo; gode Lanselot, eller gode Gobbo, bruka leggine; tak hyven; drag din veg. " Samvite segjer: "nei, agta deg, ærlige Gobbo, " eller som fyr sagt: "ærlige Lanselot Gobbo, røm ikkje; set deg mot røming med hæl og taa!" Men fenden, den stormodige, bed meg pakka meg; "fremad mars!" segjer fenden; "legg i veg!" segjer fenden; "for alt som heilagt er, " segjer fenden; "vaaga paa; drag i veg!" Men samvite heng un halsen paa hjarta mitt og talar visdom til meg; "min ærlige ven Lanselot, som er son av ein ærlig mann, eller rettare: av eit ærligt kvende; for skal eg segja sant, so teva det eit grand svidt av far min; han hadde som ein attaat-snev; naah; samvite segjer: "du skal ikkje fantegaa. " "Du skal fantegaa, " segjer fenden; "nei; ikkje fantegaa, " segjer samvite. "Du samvit, " segjer eg, "du raader meg godt. " "Du fenden, " segjer eg, "du raader meg godt. " Fylgde eg no samvite, so vart eg verande hjaa juden, som--forlate mi synd--er noko som ein devel; og rømer eg fraa juden, so lyder eg fenden, som--beintfram sagt--er develen sjølv. Visst og sannt: juden er sjølve develen i karnition; men etter mitt vit er samvite mit vitlaust, som vil raade meg til aa verta verande hjaa juden. Fenden gjev meg den venlegaste raadi; eg tek kuten, fenden; hælane mine stend til din kommando; eg tek kuten. "

This has the genuine ring. The brisk colloquial vocabulary fitsadmirably the brilliant sophistry of the argument. And both could comeonly from Launcelot Gobbo. For "the simplicity of the folk" is one ofthose fictions which romantic closet study has woven around the study of"the people. "

Of the little re-telling of _The Merchant of Venice_, "Soga umKaupmannen i Venetia"[32] which appeared in the same year, nothing needbe said. It is a simple, unpretentious summary of the story with acertain charm which simplicity and naïveté always give. No name appearson the title-page, but we are probably safe in attributing it toMadhus, for in the note to _Kaupmannen i Venetia_ we read: "I _Soga umKaupmannen i Venetia_ hev ein sjølve forteljingi som stykkji er bygtpaa. "

 [32. _Soga um Kaupmannen i Venetia_. Oslo, 1905. ]

I

In the year 1903, midway between the publication of Madhus' _Macbeth_and the appearance of his _Kaupmannen i Venetia_, there appeared in thechief literary magazine of the Landsmaal movement, "Syn og Segn, " atranslation of the fairy scenes of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ by ErikEggen. [33] This is the sort of material which we should expect Landsmaalto render well. Oberon and Titania are not greatly different from Nissenand Alverne in Norwegian fairy tales, and the translator had but tofancy himself in Alveland to be in the enchanted wood near Athens. Thespirit of the fairy scenes in Shakespeare is akin to the spirit ofAsbjørnson's "Huldre-Eventyr. " There is in them a community of feeling, of fancy, of ideas. And whereas Madhus had difficulty with the sunnyromance of Italy, Eggen in the story of Puck found material ready tohand. The passage translated begins Act II, Sc. 1, and runs through ActII to Oberon's words immediately before the entrance of Helen andDemetrius:

 But who comes here? I am invisible; And I will overhear their conference. 

 [33. _Alveliv. Eller Shakespeare's Midsumarnatt Draum_ ved Erik Eggen. _Syn og Segn_, 1903. No. 3-6, pp. (105-114); 248-259. ]

Then the translator omits everything until Puck re-enters and Oberongreets him with the words:

 Velkomen, vandrar; hev du blomen der? (Hast thou the flower there? Welcome, wanderer. )

Here the translation begins again and goes to the exit of Oberon and theentrance of Lysander and Hermia. This is all in the first selection in_Syn og Segn_, No. 3. 

In the sixth number of the same year (1903) the work is continued. Thetranslation here begins with Puck's words (Act III):

 What hempen homespuns have we swaggering here? So near the cradle of the fairy queen? What, a play toward! I'll be an auditor; An actor, too, if I see cause. 

Then it breaks off again and resumes with the entrance of Puck andBottom adorned with an ass's head. Quince's words: "O monstrous! Ostrange!" are given and then Puck's speech: "I'll follow you: I'll leadyou about a round. " After this there is a break till Bottom's song:

 "The ousel cock, so black of hue, " etc. 

And now all proceeds without break to the _Hail_ of the last elf calledin to serve Bottom, but the following speeches between Bottom and thefairies, Cobweb, Mustardseed and Peaseblossom, are all cut, and thescene ends with Titania's speech:

 "Come, wait upon him, lead him to my bower, " etc. 

Act III, Sc. 2, follows immediately, but the translation ends with thefirst line of Oberon's speech to Puck before the entrance of Demetriusand Hermia:

 "This falls out better than I could devise. "

and resumes with Oberon's words:

 "I'll to my queen and beg her Indian boy, "

and includes (with the omission of the last two lines) Oberon's speechbeginning:

 "But we are spirits of another sort. "

Eggen then jumps to the fourth act and translates Titania's openingspeech. After this there is a break till the entrance of Oberon. Thedialogue between Titania and Oberon is given faithfully, except thatin the speech in which Oberon removes the incantation, all the linesreferring to the wedding of Theseus are omitted; the speeches of Puck, Oberon, and Titania immediately preceding the entrance of Theseus, Hippolyta, Egeus, and their train, are rendered. 

From Act V the entire second scene is given. 

Eggen has, then, attempted to give a translation into NorwegianLandsmaal of the fairy scenes in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. He hasconfined himself severely to his task as thus limited, even cutting outlines from the middle of speeches when these lines refer to another partof the action or to another group of characters. What we have is, then, a fragment, to be defended only as an experiment, and successful inproportion as it renders single lines, speeches, or songs well. On thewhole, Eggen has been successful. There is a vigor and directness in hisstyle which, indeed, seem rather Norwegian than Shakespearean, but whichare, nevertheless, entirely convincing. One is scarcely conscious thatit is a translation. And in the lighter, more romantic passages Eggenhas hit the right tone with entire fidelity. His knowledge is sound. Hisnotes, though exhibiting no special learning, show clearly that he isabreast of modern scholarship. Whenever his rendering seems daring, heaccompanies it with a note that clearly and briefly sets forth why aparticular word or phrase was chosen. The standard Danish, Norwegian, and German translations are known to him, and occasionally he borrowsfrom them. But he knows exactly why he does borrow. His scholarshipand his real poetic power combine to give us a translation of whichLandsmaal literature has every reason to be proud. We need give onlya few passages. I like the rollicking humor of Puck's words:

 Kor torer uhengt kjeltrings pakk daa skvaldre so nære vogga hennar alvemor? Kva?--skodespel i gjerdom? Eg vil sjaa paa-- kann hende spele med, um so eg synest. 

And a little farther on when Bottom, adorned with his ass's head, returns with Puck, and the simple players flee in terror and Puckexclaims:

 Eg fylgjer dykk og fører rundt i tunn, i myr og busk og ormegras og klunger, og snart eg er ein hest og snart ein hund, ein gris, ein mannvond bjørn, snart flammetungur, og kneggjer, gøyr og ryler, murrar, brenn, som hest, hund, gris, bjørn, varme--eitt um senn. 

we give our unqualified admiration to the skill of the translator. Or, compare Titania's instructions to the faries to serve her Bottom:

 Ver venlege imot og tén den herren! Dans vænt for augo hans, hopp der han gjeng! Gjev aprikos og frukt fraa blaabærlid, ei korg med druvur, fikjur, morbær i! Stel honningsekken bort fraa annsam bi! Til Nattljos hennar voksbein slit i fleng, -- kveik deim paa jonsok-onn i buskeheng! Lys for min ven, naar han vil gaa i seng. Fraa maala fivreld slit ein fager veng, og fraa hans augo maaneljose steng. Hels honom so, og kyss til honom sleng. 

 _Fyrste Alven_: Menneskje. 

 _Andre Alven_: Heil deg!

 _Tridje Alven_: Heil!

 _Fjerde Alven_: Heil og sæl!

 _Titania_: Tén honom so! Leid honom til mitt rom! Eg tykkjer maanen er i augo vaat; og naar han græt, daa græt kvar litin blom, og minnest daa ei tilnøydd dygd med graat. Legg handi paa hans munn! Og stilt far aat!

It is, however, in his exquisitely delicate rendering of the songs ofthis play--certainly one of the most difficult tasks that a translatorcan undertake--that Eggen has done his best work. There is more than adistant echo of the original in this happy translation of Bottom's song:

 Han trostefar med svarte kropp og nebb som appelsin, og gjerdesmett med litin topp og stare med tone fin. Og finke, sporv og lerke graa og gauk, --ho, ho![34] han lær, so tidt han gjev sin næste smaa; men aldri svar han fær. 

 [34. The translator explains in a note the pun in the original. ]

The marvelous richness of the Norwegian dialects in the vocabulary offolklore is admirably brought out in the song with which the fairiessing Titania to sleep:[35]

 _Ein alv_: Spettut orm med tungur tvo, kvass bust-igel, krjup kje her! Øle, staal-orm, fara no, kom vaar alvemor ei nær!

 _Alle alvene_: Maaltrost, syng med tone full du med oss vaart bysselull: bysse, bysse, bysselull, ei maa vald, ei heksegald faa vaar dronning ottefull; so god natt og bysselull. 

 _Ein annan alv_: Ingi kongrov vil me sjaa, langbeint vevekjering, gakk! Svart tordivel, burt her fraa, burt med snigil og med makk!

 _Alle alvene_: Maaltrost, syng med tone full du med oss vaart bysselull: bysse, bysse, bysselull, bysse, bysse, bysselull, ei maa vald, ei heksegald faa vaar dronning ottefull; so god natt og bysselull. 

 [35. Act II, Sc. 2. ]

It is easy to draw upon this fragment for further examples of felicitoustranslation. It is scarcely necessary, however. What has been given issufficient to show the rare skill of the translator. He is so fortunateas to possess in a high degree what Bayard Taylor calls "secondaryinspiration, " without which the work of a translator becomes a soullessmass and frequently degenerates into the veriest drivel. Erik Eggen's_Alveliv_ deserves a place in the same high company with Taylor's_Faust_. 

Nine years later, in 1912, Eggen returned to the task he had leftunfinished with the fairy scenes in _Syn og Segn_ and gave a completetranslation of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. In a little prefatory notehe acknowledges his indebtedness to Arne Garborg, who criticallyexamined the manuscript and gave valuable suggestions and advice. The introduction itself is a restatement in two pages of theShakespeare-Essex-Leicester-Elizabeth story. Shakespeare recalls thefestivities as he saw them in youth when he writes in Act II, Sc. 2:

 thou rememberest Since once I sat upon a promontory, And heard a mermaid upon a dolphin's back, etc. 

And it is Elizabeth he has in mind when, in the same scene, we read:

 That very time I saw, but thou could'st not, Flying between the cold moon and the earth, Cupid all armed, etc. 

All of this is given by way of background, and it is of littleimportance to the general readers what modern Shakespeare scholarsmay say of it. 

Eggen has not been content merely to reprint in the complete translationhis earlier work from _Syn og Segn_, but he has made a thoroughgoingrevision. [36] It cannot be said to be altogether happy. Frequently, ofcourse, a line or phrase is improved or an awkward turn straightenedout, but, as a whole, the first version surpasses the second not inpoetic beauty merely, but in accuracy. Compare, for example, the tworenderings of the opening lines:

 SYN OG SEGN--1903

 _Nissen_: Kor no ande! seg, kvar skal du av?

 REVISION OF 1912

 _Tuften_: Hallo! Kvar skal du av, du vesle vette?

 _Alven_: Yver dal, yver fjell, gjenom vatn, gjenom eld, yver gras, yver grind, gjenom klunger so stinn, yver alt eg smett og kliv snøggare enn maanen sviv; eg i gras dei ringar doggar, der vaar mori dans seg voggar. 

 _Alven_: Yver dal, yver fjell, gjenom vatn, gjenom eld, yver gras, yver grind, gjenom klunger so stinn, alle stad'r eg smett og kliv snøggare enn maanen sviv; eg dogge maa dei grøne straa som vaar dronning dansar paa. 

 Hennar vakt mun symrur vera, gyllne klæde mun dei bera; sjaa dei stjernur alvar gav deim! Derfraa kjem all angen av deim. Aa sanke dogg--til de eg kom; ei perle fester eg til kvar ein blom. Far vel, du ande-styving! Eg maa vekk; vaar dronning er her ho paa fljugand' flekk. 

 Kvart nykelband er adelsmann, med ordenar dei glime kann; kvar blank rubin, paa bringa skin, utsender ange fin. Doggdropar blanke skal eg sanke, mange, mange, dei skal hange kvar av hennar adels-mennar glimande i øyra. 

 [36. William Shakespeare--_Jonsok Draumen_--Eit Gamenspel. Paa Norsk ved Erik Eggen. Oslo, 1912. ]

Now, admitting that

 eg dogge maa dei grøne straa som vaar dronning dansar paa. 

is a better translation than in the _Syn og Segn_ text--which isdoubtful enough--it is difficult to see what can be the excuse for suchpompous banality as

 Kvart nykelband er adelsmann, med ordenar dei glime kann;

the first version is not above reproach in this respect. It mightfairly be asked: where does Eggen get his authority for

 sjaa dei stjernur alvar gav deim!

But the lines are not loaded down with imagery which is both misleadingand in bad taste. Eggen should have left his first version unchanged. Such uninspired prose as:

 kvar blank rubin, paa bringa skin, utsender ange fin. 

have to the ears of most Norwegians the atmosphere of the back stairs. Better the unadorned version of 1903. 

In the passage following, Robin's reply, the revised version is probablybetter than the first, though there seems to be little to choose betweenthem. But in the fairy's next speech the translator has gone quitebeyond his legitimate province, and has improved Shakespeare by apicture from Norwegian folklore. Following the lines of the original:

 Misleade nightwanderers, laughing at their harm, Eggen has added this homelike conception in his translation:

 som òg kann draga fôr til hest og naut, naar berre du kvar torsdag fær din graut. 

Shakespeare in Elysium must have regretted that he was not born in themountains of Norway!

And when Robin, in the speech that follows, tells of his antics, onewonders just a little what has been gained by the revision. The samequery is constantly suggested to anyone who compares the two texts. 

Nor do I think that the lyrics have gained by the revision. Just asingle comparison--the lullaby in the two versions. We have given itabove as published in _Syn og Segn_. The following is its revised form:

 _Fyrste alven_: Spettut orm, bustyvel kvass, eiter-ødle, sleve graa, fare burt fraa denne plass, so vaar dronning sova maa!

 _Alle_: Maaltrost, syng med oss i lund dronningi i sælan blund: Byssam, byssam barne, gryta heng i jarne. Troll og nykk, gakk burt med dykk denne sæle skymingsstund! So god natt! Sov søtt i lund!

 _Andre alven_: Burt, tordivel, kom kje her! Makk og snigill, burt dykk vinn! Kongro, far ei onnor ferd, langt ifraa oss din spune spinn!

 _Alle_: Maaltrost, syng med oss i lund, etc. 

The first version is not only more literal but, so far as I can judge, superior in every way--in music and delicacy of phrase. And again, Eggenhas taken it upon himself to patch up Shakespeare with homespun ragsfrom his native Norwegian parish. It is difficult to say upon whatgrounds such tinkerings with the text as:

 Byssam, byssam barne, gryta, heng i jarne, can be defended. 

But we have already devoted too much space to this matter. Save for afew isolated lines, Eggen might very well have left these scenes as hegave them to us in 1903. We then ask, "What of the much greater part ofthe play now translated for the first time?" Well, no one will disputethe translator's triumph in this scene:[37]

 _Mønsaas_: Er heile kompanie samla?

 _Varp_: Det er best du ropar deim upp alle saman, mann for mann, etter lista. 

 _Mønsaas_: Her er ei liste yver namni paa alle deim som me i heile Atén finn mest høvelege til aa spela i millomstykke vaareses framfyre hertugen og frua hans paa brudlaupsdagen um kvelden. 

 _Varp_: Du Per Mønsaas, lyt fyrst segja kva stykke gjeng ut paa; les so upp namni paa spelarne, og so--til saki. 

 _Mønsaas_: Ja vel. Stykke heiter: "Det grøtelege gamanspele um Pyramus og Tisbi og deira syndlege daude. "

 _Varp_: Verkeleg eit godt stykke arbeid, skal eg segja dykk, og morsamt med. No, min gode Per Mønsaas, ropa upp spelarne etter lista. Godtfolk, spreid dykk. 

 _Mønsaas_: Svara ettersom eg ropar dykk upp. Nils Varp, vevar?

 _Varp_: Her! Seg kva for ein rolle eg skal hava, og haldt so fram. 

 _Mønsaas_: Du, Nils Varp, er skrivin for Pyramus. 

 _Varp_: Kva er Pyramus for slags kar? Ein elskar eller ein fark?

 _Mønsaas_: Ein elskar som drep seg sjølv paa ægte riddarvis av kjærleik. 

 _Varp_: Det kjem til aa koste taarur um ein spelar det retteleg. Fær eg spela det, so lyt nok dei som ser paa, sjaa til kvar dei hev augo sine; eg skal grøte steinen, eg skal jamre so fælt so. For resten, mi gaave ligg best for ein berserk. Eg skulde spela herr Kules fraamifra--eller ein rolle, der eg kann klore og bite og slaa all ting i mòl og mas: Og sprikk det fjell med toresmell, daa sunder fell kvar port so sterk. Stig Føbus fram bak skyatram, daa sprikk med skam alt gygere-herk. Det der laag no høgt det. Nemn so resten av spelarane. Dette var rase til herr Kules, berserk-ras; ein elskar er meir klagande. 

 [37. Act II, Sc. 2. ]

There can be no doubt about the genuineness of this. It catches thespirit of the original and communicates it irresistibly to the reader. When Bottom (Varp) says "Kva er Pyramus for slags kar?" or when hethreatens, "Eg skal grøte steinen, eg skal jamre so fælt so, " one whohas something of Norwegian "Sprachgefühl" will exclaim that this isexactly what it should be. It is not the language of Norwegianartisans--they do not speak Landsmaal. But neither is the language ofShakespeare's craftsmen the genuine spoken language of Elizabethancraftsmen. The important thing is that the tone is right. And thisfeeling of a right tone is still further satisfied in the rehearsalscene (III, Sc. 1). Certain slight liberties do not diminish ourpleasure. The reminiscence of _Richard III_ in Bottom's, "A calendar, acalendar, looke in the Almanack, finde out moonshine, " translated "Eialmanakke, ei almanakke, mit kongerike for ei almanakke, " seems, however, a labored piece of business. One line, too, has been added tothis speech which is a gratuitous invention of the translator, orrather, taken from the curious malaprop speech of the laboring classes;"Det er rett, Per Mønsaas; sjaa millom aspektarane!" There can be noobjection to an interpolation like this if the translation does not aimto be scholarly and definitive, but merely an effort to bring a foreignclassic home to the masses. And this is, obviously, Eggen's purpose. Personally I do not think, therefore, that there is any objection to aslight freedom like this. But it has no place at all in the fairies'lullaby. 

When we move to the circle of the high-place lovers or the court, I cannot feel that the Landsmaal is quite so convincing. There issomething appallingly clumsy, labored, hard, in this speech of Hermia's:

 Min eigin gut, eg sver ved beste bogen Amor hev, ved beste pili hans, med odd av gull, ved duvune, dei reine og dei kvite som flyg paa tun hjaa fagre Afrodite, ved det som knyter mannehjarto saman, ved det som føder kjærlerks fryd og gaman, ved baale, der seg dronning Dido brende, daa seg Æneas trulaus fraa ho vende, ved kvar den eid som falske menn hev svori-- langt fleir enn kvinnelippur fram hev bori, at paa den staden du hev nemnt for meg, der skal i morgo natt eg møte deg. 

In spite of the translator's obvious effort to put fire into thepassage, his failure is all too evident. Even the ornament of theselines--to which there is nothing to correspond in the original--onlymakes the poetry more forcibly feeble:

 ved duvune, dei reine og dei kvite som flyg paa tun hjaa fagre Afrodite, Shakespeare says quite simply:

 By the simplicity of Venus Doves, and to anyone but a Landsmaal fanatic it seems ridiculous to haveTheseus tell Hermia: "Demetrius er so gild ein kar som nokon. ""Demetrius is a worthy gentleman, " says Shakespeare and this has"the grand Manner. " But to a cultivated Norwegian the translation is"Bauernsprache, " such as a local magnate might use in forcing a suitoron his daughter. 

All of which goes back to the present condition of Landsmaal. It haslittle flexibility, little inward grace. It is not a finished literarylanguage. But, despite its archaisms, Landsmaal is a living language andit has, therefore, unlike the Karathevusa of Greece, the possibility ofgrowth. The translations of Madhus and Aasen and Eggen have made notablecontributions to this development. They are worthy of all praise. Theirweaknesses are the result of conditions which time will change. 

J

One might be tempted to believe from the foregoing that thepropagandists of "Maalet" had completely monopolized the noble task ofmaking Shakespeare accessible in the vernacular. And this is almosttrue. But the reason is not far to seek. Aside from the fact that inNorway, as elsewhere, Shakespeare is read mainly by cultivated people, among whom a sound reading knowledge of English is general, we havefurther to remember that the Foersom-Lembcke version has become standardin Norway and no real need has been felt of a separate Norwegian versionin the dominant literary language. In Landsmaal the case is different. This dialect must be trained to "Literaturfähigkeit. " It is not so muchthat Norway must have her own Shakespeare as that Landsmaal must be putto use in every type of literature. The results of this missionaryspirit we have seen. 

One of the few translations of Shakespeare that have been made intoRiksmaal appeared in 1912, _Hamlet_, by C. H. Blom. As an experiment itis worthy of respect, but as a piece of literature it is not to be takenseriously. Like Lassen's work, it is honest, faithful, and utterlyuninspired. 

The opening scene of _Hamlet_ is no mean test of a translator'sability--this quick, tense scene, one of the finest in dramaticliterature. Foersom did it with conspicuous success. Blom has reducedit to the following prosy stuff:

 _Bernardo_: Hvem der?

 _Francisco_: Nei, svar mig først; gjør holdt og sig hvem der!

 _Ber_: Vor konge længe leve!

 _Fra_: De, Bernardo?

 _Ber_: Ja vel. 

 _Fra_: De kommer jo paa klokkeslaget. 

 _Ber_: Ja, den slog tolv nu. Gaa til ro, Francisco. 

 _Fra_: Tak for De løser av. Her er saa surt, og jeg er dødsens træt. 

 _Ber_: Har du hat rolig vagt?

 _Fra_: En mus har ei sig rørt. 

 _Ber_: Nu vel, god nat. Hvis du Marcellus og Horatio ser, som skal ha vakt med mig, bed dem sig skynde. 

 _Fra_: Jeg hører dem vist nu. Holdt hoi! Hvem der. (Horatio og Marcellus kommer. )

 _Horatio_: Kun landets venner. 

 _Marcellus_: Danekongens folk!

 _Fra_: God nat, sov godt!

 _Mar_: Godnat, du bra soldat! Hvem har løst av?

 _Fra_: Bernardo staar paa post. God nat igjen. (Gaar. )

It requires little knowledge of Norwegian to dismiss this as dulland insipid prose, a part of which has accidentally been turned intomechanical blank verse. Moreover, the work is marked throughout byinconsistency and carelessness in details. For instance the king begins(p. 7) by addressing Laertes:

 Hvad melder _De_ mig om _Dem_ selv, Laertes?

and two lines below:

 Hvad kan _du_ be mig om?

It might be a mere slip that the translator in one line uses the formal_De_ and in another the familiar _du_, but the same inconsistency occursagain and again throughout the volume. In itself a trifle, it indicatesclearly enough the careless, slipshod manner of work--and an utter lackof a sense of humor, for no one with a spark of humor would use themodern, essentially German _De_ in a Norwegian translation ofShakespeare. If a formal form must be used it should, as a matterof course, be _I_. 

Nor is the translation itself so accurate as it should be. For example, what does it mean when Marcellus tells Bernardo that he had imploredHoratio "at vogte paa minutterne inat" (to watch over the minutes thisnight)? Again, in the King's speech to Hamlet (Act I, Sc. 2) the phrase"bend you to remain" is rendered by the categorical "se til at bliherhjemme, " which is at least misleading. Little inaccuracies of thissort are not infrequent. 

But, after all, a translator with a new variorum and a wealth ofcritical material at hand cannot go far wrong in point of meretranslation. The chief indictment to be made against Blom's translationis its prosiness, its prosy, involved sentences, its banality. What inShakespeare is easy and mellifluous often becomes in Blom so vague thatits meaning has to be discovered by a reference to the original. 

We gave, some pages back, Ivar Aasen's translation of Hamlet'ssoliloquy. The interesting thing about that translation is not only thatit is the first one in Norwegian but that it was made into a new dialectby the creator of that dialect himself. When we look back and considerwhat Aasen had to do--first, make a literary medium, and then pour intothe still rigid and inelastic forms of that language the subtlestthinking of a great world literature--we gain a new respect for hisgenius. Fifty years later Blom tried his hand at the same soliloquy. Hewas working in an old and tried literary medium--Dano-Norwegian. But hewas unequal to the task:

 At være eller ikke være, det problemet er: Om det er større av en sjæl at taale skjæbnens pil og slynge end ta til vaaben mot et hav av plager og ende dem i kamp? At dø, --at sove, ei mer; og tro, at ved en søvn vi ender vor hjerteve og livets tusen støt, som kjød er arving til--det maal for livet maa ønskes inderlig. At dø, --at sove-- at sove!--Kanske drømme! Der er knuten; for hvad i dødsens søvn vi monne drømme, naar livets lænke vi har viklet av, det holder os igjen; det er det hensyn, som gir vor jammer her saa langt et liv' etc. 

K

Much more interesting than Blom's attempt, and much more significant, is a translation and working over of _As You Like It_ which appearedin November of the same year. The circumstances under which thistranslation were made are interesting. Fru Johanne Dybwad, one of the"stars" at the National Theater was completing her twenty-fifth yearof service on the stage, and the theater wished to commemorate the eventin a manner worthy of the actress. For the gala performance, HermanWildenvey, a poet of the young Norway, made a new translation andadaptation of _As You Like It_. [38] And no choice could have been morefelicitous. Fru Dybwad had scored her greatest success as Puck; the lifeand sparkle and jollity of that mischievous wight seemed like a poeticglorification of her own character. It might be expected, then, that shewould triumph in the rôle of Rosalind. 

 [38: _As You Like It_, eller _Livet i Skogen_. Dramatisk Skuespil av William Shakespeare. Oversat og bearbeidet for Nationaltheatret av Herman Wildenvey. Kristiania og København. 1912. ]

Then came the problem of a stage version. A simple cutting of Lembckeseemed inappropriate to this intensely modern woman. There was danger, too, that Lembcke's faithful Danish would hang heavy on the light andsparkling Norwegian. Herman Wildenvey undertook to prepare an actingversion that should fit the actress and the occasion. The result is thetext before us. For the songs and intermissions, Johan Halvorsen, Kapelmester of the theater, composed new music and the theater provideda magnificent staging. The tremendous stage-success of Wildenvey's _AsYou Like It_ belongs rather to stage history, and for the present weshall confine ourselves to the translation itself. 

First, what of the cutting? In a short introduction the translator hasgiven an apologia for his procedure. It is worth quoting at some length. "To adapt a piece of literature is, as a rule, not especiallycommendable. And now, I who should be the last to do it, have become thefirst in this country to attempt anything of the sort with Shakespeare. 

"I will not defend myself by saying that most of Shakespeare's playsrequire some sort of adaptation to the modern stage if they are to beplayed at all. But, as a matter of fact, I have done little adapting. Ihave dusted some of the speeches, maltreated others, and finally cut outa few which would have sputtered out of the mouths of the actors likefringes of an old tapestry. But, above all, I have tried to reproducethe imperishable woodland spirit, the fresh breath of out-of-doors whichpermeates this play. "

Wildenvey then states that in his cuttings he has followed the editionof the British Empire Shakespeare Society. But the performance inKristiania has demanded more, "and my adaptation could not be sowonderfully ideal. _As You Like It_ is, probably more than any other ofShakespeare's plays, a jest and only in part a play. Through the titlehe has given his work, he has given me the right to make my ownarrangement which is accordingly, yours truly _As You Like It_. "

But the most cursory examination will show that this is more than a mere"cutting. " In the first place, the five acts have been cut to four andscenes widely separated, have often been brought together. In this wayunnecessary scene-shifts have been avoided. But the action has been keptintact and only two characters have been eliminated: Jacques de Bois, whose speeches have been given to Le Beau, and Hymen, whose rôle hasbeen given to Celia. Two or three speeches have been shifted. But to areader unacquainted with Shakespeare all this would pass unnoticed, aswould also, doubtless, the serious cutting and the free translation. 

A brief sketch of Wildenvey's arrangement will be of service. 

[Transcriber's Note:The summary is given here exactly as it appears in Ruud's text. Notein particular Wildenvey's I, 2, and Shakespeare's II, 1. ]

 Act I, Sc. 1. 

 An open place on the road to Sir Oliver's house. 

 The scene opens with a short, exceedingly free rendering of Orlando's speech and runs on to the end of Scene 1 in Shakespeare. 

 Act I, Sc. 2. 

 Outside of Duke Frederik's Palace. 

 Begins with I, 2 and goes to I, 3. Then follows without change of scene, I, 3. And, following that, 1, 3. 

 Act II. 

 In Wildenvey this is all one scene. 

 Opens with a rhapsodical conversation between the banished duke and Amiens on the glories of nature and the joys of out-door life. It is fully in Shakespeare's tone, but Wildenvey's own invention. After this the scene continues with II, 1. The first lord's speech in Wildenvey, however, is merely a free adaptation of the original, and the later speech of the first lord, describing Jacques' reveries on the hunt, is put into the mouth of Jacques himself. A few entirely new speeches follow and the company goes out upon the hunt. 

 There is then a slight pause, but no scene division, and Shakespeare's II, 4 follows. This is succeeded again without a break, by II, 5, II, 6, and II, 7 (the opening of II, 7 to the entrance of Jacques, is omitted altogether) to the end of the act. 

 Act III. 

 This act has two scenes. 

 Sc. 1. In Duke Frederik's palace. It opens with II, I and then follows III, 1. 

 Sc. 2. In the Forest of Arden. Evening. 

 Begins with III, 2. Then follows III, 4, III, 5, IV, 1. 

 Act IV. 

 Wildenvey's last act (IV) opens with Shakespeare's IV, 2 and continues: IV, 3, V, 1, V, 2, V, 3, V, 4. 

A study of this scheme shows that Wildenvey has done no great violenceto the fable nor to the characters. His shifts and changes are sensibleenough. In the treatment of the text, however, he has had no scruples. Shakespeare is mercilessly cut and mangled. 

The ways in which this is done are many. A favorite device is to breakup long speeches into dialogue. To make this possible he has to putspeeches of his own invention into the mouths of other characters. Theopening of the play gives an excellent illustration. In Wildenvey weread:

 _Orlando_: (kommer ind med tjeneren Adam) Nu kan du likesaa godt faa vite hvordan alle mine bedrøveligheter begynder, Adam! Min salig far testamenterte mig nogen fattige tusen kroner og paala uttrykkelig min bror at gi mig en standsmæssig opdragelse. Men se hvordan han opfylder sin broderpligt mot mig! Han lar min bror Jacques studere, og rygtet melder om hans store fremgang. Men mig underholder han hjemme, det vil si, han holder mig hjemme uten at underholde mig. For man kan da vel ikke kalde det at underholde en adelsmand som ellers regnes for at staldfore en okse!

 _Adam_: Det er synd om Eder, herre, I som er min gamle herres bedste søn! Men jeg tjener Eders bror, og er alene tjener... 

 _Orl_: Her hos ham har jeg ikke kunnet lægge mig til noget andet end vækst, og det kan jeg være ham likesaa forbunden for som hans husdyr hist og her. Formodentlig er det det jeg har arvet av min fars aand som gjør oprør mot denne behandling. Jeg har ingen utsigt til nogen forandring til det bedre, men hvad der end hænder, vil jeg ikke taale det længer. 

Orlando's speech, we see, has been broken up into two, and between thetwo new speeches has been interpolated a speech by Adam which does notoccur in the original. The same trick is resorted to repeatedly. Note, for instance, Jacques first speech on the deer (Act II, 7) and Oliver'slong speech in IV, 3. The purpose of this is plain enough--to enliventhe dialogue and speed up the action. Whether or not it is a legitimateway of handling Shakespeare is another matter. 

More serious than this is Wildenvey's trick of adding whole series ofspeeches. We have noted in our survey of the "bearbeidelse" that thesecond act opens with a dialogue between the Duke and Amiens which is agratuitous addition of Wildenvey's. It is suggested by the original, but departs from it radically both in form and content. 

 Den Landflygtige Hertug (kommer ut fra en grotte i skogen) Vær hilset, dag, som lægges til de andre av mine mange motgangs dage. Vær hilset nu, naar solen atter stempler sit gyldne segl paa jordens stolte pande. Vær hilset, morgen, med din nye rigdom, med dug og duft fra alle trær og blomster. Glade, blanke fugleøines perler blinker alt av sol som duggens draaper, hilser mig som herre og som ven. (En fugl flyver op over hans hode. ) Ei, lille sangerskjelm, godt ord igjen?

 _Amiens_: (hertugens ven, kommer likeledes ut av hulen). Godmorgen, ven og broder i eksilet. 

 _Hertugen_: Godmorgen, Amiens, du glade sanger! Du er vel enig i at slik en morgen i skogen her med al dens liv og lek er fuld erstatning for den pragt vi tapte, ja mer end hoffets smigergyldne falskhet?

 _Amiens_: Det ligner litt paa selve Edens have, og trær og dyr og andre forekomster betragter os som Adamer, kanhænde. 

 _Hertugen_: Din spøg er vel en saadan sanger værd. Du mener med at her er alting herlig, sommer, vinter, vaar og høsttid veksler. Solen skinner, vind og veiret driver. Vinterblaasten blaaser op og biter og fortæller uden sminket smiger hvem vi er, og hvor vi os befinder. Ja, livet her er ei ly for verdens ondskap, er stolt og frit og fuldt av rike glæder: hver graasten synes god og kirkeklok, hvert redetræ er jo en sangers slot, og alt er skjønt, og alt er saare godt. 

 _Amiens_: Du er en godt benaadet oversætter, naar du kan tolke skjæbnens harske talesæt i slike sterke, stemningsfulde ord... 

 (En hofmand, derefter Jacques og tjenere kommer. )

 _Hertugen_: Godmorgen, venner--vel, saa skal vi jage paa vildtet her, de vakre, dumme borgere av denne øde og forlate stad... 

 _Jacques_: Det er synd at søndre deres vakre lemmer med pile-odd. 

 _Amiens_: Det samme sier du altid, du er for melankolsk og bitter, Jacques. 

A careful comparison of the translation with the original will revealcertain verbal resemblances, notably in the duke's speech:

 Din spøk er vel en saadan sanger værd, etc. 

But, even allowing for that, it is a rephrasing rather than atranslation. The stage action, too, is changed. Notice that Jacquesappears in the scene, and that in the episode immediately following, thesecond part of the first lord's speech is put into Jacques' mouth. Inother words, he is made to caricature himself!

This is Wildenvey's attitude throughout. To take still another example. Act IV, 2 begins in the English with a brief dialogue in prose betweenJacques and the two lords. In Wildenvey this is changed to a rhymeddialogue in iambic tetrameters between Jacques and Amiens. In likemanner, the blank verse dialogue between Silvius and Phebe (Silvius andPippa) is in Norwegian rendered, or rather paraphrased, in iambic verserhyming regularly abab. 

Occasionally meanings are read into the play which not only do notbelong in Shakespeare but which are ridiculously out of place. As anillustration, note the dialogue between Orlando and Rosalind in II, 2(Original, III, 2). Orlando remarks: "Your accent is something finerthan could be purchased in so remote a dwelling. " Wildenvey rendersthis: "Eders sprog er mer elevert end man skulde vente i disse vildetrakter. De taler ikke Landsmaal. " Probably no one would be deceived bythis gratuitous satire on the Landsmaal, but, obviously, it has no placein what pretends to be a translation. The one justification for it isthat Shakespeare himself could not have resisted so neat a word-play. 

Wildenvey's version, therefore, can only be characterized as needlesslyfree. For the text as such he has absolutely no regard. But for the factthat he has kept the fable and, for the most part, the characters, intact, we should characterize it as a belated specimen of Sille Beyer'snotorious Shakespeare "bearbeidelser" in Denmark. But Wildenvey does nottake Sille Beyer's liberties with the dramatis personae and he has, moreover, what she utterly lacked--poetic genius. 

For that is the redeeming feature of _Livet i Skogen_--it does nottranslate Shakespeare but it makes him live. The delighted audiencewhich sat night after night in Christiania and Copenhagen and drank inthe loveliness of Wildenvey's verse and Halvorsen's music cared littlewhether the lines that came over the footlights were philologically anaccurate translation or not. They were enchanted by Norwegian verse andmoved to unfeigned delight by the cleverness of the prose. If Wildenveydid not succeed in translating _As You Like It_--one cannot believe thathe ever intended to, --he did succeed in reproducing something of "itsimperishable woodland spirit, its fresh breath of out-of-doors. "

We have already quoted the opening of Act II. It is not Shakespeare butit is good poetry in itself. And the immortal scene between Touchstoneand Corin in III, 2 (Shak. III, 2), in which Touchstone clearly provesthat the shepherd is damned, is a capital piece of work. The followingfragment must serve as an example:

 _Touchstone_: Har du været ved hoffet, hyrde?

 _Korin_: Visselig ikke. 

 _Touch_: Da er du evig fordømt. 

 _Korin_: Det haaber jeg da ikke. 

 _Touch_: Visselig, da er du fordømt som en sviske. 

 _Korin_: Fordi jeg ikke har været ved hoffet? Hvad mener I?

 _Touch_: Hvis du ikke har været ved hoffet, saa har du aldrig set gode seder, og hvis du ikke har set gode seder, saa maa dine seder være slette, og slette seder er synd, og syndens sold er død og fordømmelse. Du er i en betænkelig tilstand, hyrde!

And the mocking verses all rhyming in _in-ind_ in III, 3 (Shak. III, 2):"From the East to western Ind, " etc. , are given with marvelouscleverness:

 Fra øst til vest er ei at finde en ædelsten som Rosalinde. Al verden om paa alle vinde skal rygtet gaa om Rosalinde. Hvor har en maler nogensinde et kunstverk skapt som Rosalinde? Al anden deilighet maa svinde av tanken bort--for Rosalinde. 

Or Touchstone's parody:

 Hjorten skriker efter hinde, skrik da efter Rosalinde, kat vil katte gjerne finde, hvem vil finde Rosalinde. Vinterklær er tit for tynde, det er ogsaa Rosalinde. Nøtten søt har surhamshinde, slik en nøtt er Rosalinde. Den som ros' med torn vil finde, finder den--og Rosalinde. 

With even greater felicity Wildenvey has rendered the songs of the play. His verses are not, in any strict sense, translations, but they have alife and movement which, perhaps, interpret the original more fully thanany translation could interpret it. What freshness and sparkle in "Underthe Greenwood Tree!" I give only the first stanza:

 Under de grønne trær hvem vil mig møte der? Hvem vil en tone slaa frit mot det blide blaa? Kom hit og herhen, hit og herhen, kom, kjære ven, her skal du se, trær skal du se, sommer og herlig veir skal du se. 

Or what could be better than the exhilirating text of "Blow, blow, thouwinter wind, " as Wildenvey has given it? Again only the first stanza:

 Blaas, blaas du barske vind, troløse venners sind synes os mere raa. Bar du dig end saa sint, bet du dog ei saa blindt, pustet du ogsaa paa. Heiho! Syng heiho! i vor skog under løvet. Alt venskap er vammelt, al elskov er tøvet, men her under løvet er ingen bedrøvet. 

_Livet i Skogen_, then, must not be read as a translation of _As YouLike It_, but is immensely worth reading for its own sake. Schillerrecast and rewrote _Macbeth_ in somewhat the same way, but Schiller's_Macbeth_, condemned by its absurd porter-scene, is today nothingmore than a literary curiosity. I firmly believe that Wildenvey's"bearbeidelse" deserves a better fate. It gave new life to theShakespeare tradition on the Norwegian stage, and is in itself, a genuine contribution to the literature of Norway. 

SUMMARY

If we look over the field of Norwegian translation of Shakespeare, the impression we get is not one to inspire awe. The translations areneither numerous nor important. There is nothing to be compared with theGerman of Tieck and Schlegel the Danish of Foersom, or the Swedish ofHagberg. 

But the reason is obvious. Down to 1814 Norway was politically andculturally a dependency of Denmark. Copenhagen was the seat ofgovernment, of literature, and of polite life. To Copenhagen cultivatedNorwegians looked for their models and their ideals. When Shakespearemade his first appearance in the Danish literary world--Denmark andNorway--it was, of course, in pure Danish garb. Boye, Rosenfeldt, and Foersom gave to their contemporaries more or less satisfactorytranslations of Shakespeare, and Norwegians were content to accept theDanish versions. In one or two instances they made experiments of theirown. An unknown man of letters translated a scene from _Julius Caesar_in 1782, and in 1818 appeared a translation of _Coriolanus_. But thereis little that is typically Norwegian about either of these--a word or aphrase here and there. For the rest, they are written in pure Danish, and but for the title-page, no one could tell whether they werepublished in Copenhagen or Christiania and Trondhjem. 

In the meantime Foersom had begun his admirable Danish translations, and the work stopped in Norway. The building of a nation and literaryinterests of another character absorbed the attention of the cultivatedworld. Hauge's translation of _Macbeth_ is not significant, nor arethose of Lassen thirty years later. A scholar could, of course, easilyshow that they are Norwegian, but that is all. They never succeeded indisplacing Foersom-Lembcke. 

More important are the Landsmaal translations beginning with IvarAasen's in 1853. They are interesting because they mark one of the mostimportant events in modern Norwegian culture--the language struggle. Ivar Aasen set out to demonstrate that "maalet" could be used inliterature of every sort, and the same purpose, though in greatlytempered form, is to be detected in every Landsmaal translation since. Certainly in their outward aim they have succeeded. And, despite thehandicap of working in a language new, rough, and untried, they havegiven to their countrymen translations of parts of Shakespeare whichare, at least, as good as those in "Riksmaal. "

Herman Wildenvey stands alone. His work is neither a translation nora mere paraphrase; it is a reformulating of Shakespeare into a new workof art. He has accomplished a feat worth performing, but it cannot becalled translating Shakespeare. It must be judged as an independentwork. 

Whether Norway is always to go to Denmark for her standard Shakespeare, or whether she is to have one of her own is, as yet, a questionimpossible to answer. A pure Landsmaal translation cannot satisfy, andmany Norwegians refuse to recognize the Riksmaal as Norwegian at all. Inthe far, impenetrable future the language question may settle itself, and when that happy day comes, but not before, we may look with someconfidence for a "standard" Shakespeare in a literary garb which allNorwegians will recognize as their own. 

CHAPTER II

Shakespeare Criticism In Norway

The history of Shakespearean translation in Norway cannot, by anystretch of the imagination, be called distinguished. It is not, however, wholly lacking in interesting details. In like manner the history ofShakespearean criticism, though it contains no great names and nofascinating chapters, is not wholly without appeal and significance. Weshall, then, in the following, consider this division of our subject. 

Our first bit of Shakespearean criticism is the little introductory notewhich the anonymous translator of the scenes from _Julius Caesar_ put atthe head of his translation in _Trondhjems Allehaande_ for October 23, 1782. And even this is a mere statement that the passage in the original"may be regarded as a masterpiece, " and that the writer purposes torender not merely Antony's eloquent appeal but also the interspersedejaculations of the crowd, "since these, too, are evidence ofShakespeare's understanding of the human soul and of his realizationof the manner in which the oration gradually brought about the resulttoward which Antony aimed. "

This is not profound criticism, to be sure, but it shows clearly thatthis litterateur in far-away Trondhjem had a definite, if not a very newand original, estimate of Shakespeare. It is significant that there isno hint of apology, of that tone which is so common in Shakespeareancriticism of the day--Shakespeare was a great poet, but his genius waswild and untamed. This unknown Norwegian, apparently, had been struckonly by the verity of the scene, and in that simplicity showed himself abetter critic of Shakespeare than many more famous men. Whoever he was, his name is lost to us now. He deserves better than to be forgotten, but it seems that he was forgotten very early. Foersom refers to himcasually, as we have seen, but Rahbek does not mention him. [1] Manyyears later Paul Botten Hansen, one of the best equipped bookmen thatNorway has produced, wrote a brief review of Lembcke's translation. Inthe course of this he enumerates the Dano-Norwegian translations knownto him. There is not a word about his countryman in Trondhjem. [2]

 [1. "Shakespeareana i Danmark"--_Dansk Minerva_, 1816 (III) pp. 151 ff. ]

 [2. _Illustreret Nyhedsblad_, 1865, pp. 96 ff. ]

After this solitary landmark, a long time passed before we again findevidence of Shakespearean studies in Norway. The isolated translationof _Coriolanus_ from 1818 shows us that Shakespeare was read, carefullyand critically read, but no one turned his attention to criticism orscholarly investigation. Indeed, I have searched Norwegian periodicalliterature in vain for any allusion to Shakespeare between 1782 and1827. Finally, in the latter year _Den Norske Husven_ adorns itstitle-page with a motto from Shakespeare. _Christiania Aftenbladet_for July 19, 1828, reprints Carl Bagger's clever poem on Shakespeare'sreputed love-affair with "Fanny, " an adventure which got him intotrouble and gave rise to the bon-mot, "William the Conqueror ruledbefore Richard III. " The poem was reprinted from _Kjöbenhavns FlyvendePost_ (1828); we shall speak of it again in connection with our study ofShakespeare in Denmark. 

After this there is another break. Not even a reference to Shakespeareoccurs in the hundreds of periodicals I have examined, until the longsilence is broken by a short, fourth-hand article on Shakespeare's lifein _Skilling Magazinet_ for Sept. 23, 1843. The same magazine gives asimilar popular account in its issue for Sept. 4, 1844. Indeed, severalsuch articles and sketches may be found in popular periodicals of theyears following. 

In 1855, however, appeared Niels Hauge's afore mentioned translation of_Macbeth_, and shortly afterward Professor Monrad, who, according toHauge himself, had at least given him valuable counsel in his work, wrote a review in _Nordisk Tidsskrift for Videnskab og Literatur_. [3]Monrad was a pedant, stiff and inflexible, but he was a man of goodsense, and when he was dealing with acknowledged masterpieces he couldbe depended upon to say the conventional things well. 

 [3. See Vol. III (1855), pp. 378 ff. ]

He begins by saying that if any author deserves translation itis Shakespeare, for in him the whole poetic, romantic ideal ofProtestantism finds expression. He is the Luther of poetry, thoughbetween Luther and Shakespeare there is all the difference betweenreligious zeal and the quiet contemplation of the beautiful. Both belongto the whole world, Shakespeare because his characters, humor, art, reflections, are universal in their validity and their appeal. Whereverhe is read he becomes the spokesman against narrowness, dogmatism, andintolerance. To translate Shakespeare, he points out, is difficultbecause of the archaic language, the obscure allusions, and the intenseoriginality of the expression. Shakespeare, indeed, is as much thecreator as the user of his mother-tongue. The one translation of_Macbeth_ in existence, Foersom's, is good, but it is only in partShakespeare, and the times require something more adequate and"something more distinctly our own. " Monrad feels that this shouldnot be altogether impossible "when we consider the intimate relationsbetween England and Norway, and the further coincidence that theNorwegian language today is in the same state of flux and transition, as was Elizabethan English. " All translations at present, he continues, can be but experiments, and should aim primarily at a faithful renderingof the text. Monrad calls attention to the fact--in which he was, ofcourse, mistaken--that this is the first translation of the original_Macbeth_ into Dano-Norwegian or into Danish. It is a work of undoubtedmerit, though here and there a little stiff and hazy, "but Shakespeareis not easily clarified. " The humorous passages, thinks the reviewer, are a severe test of a translator's powers and this test Hauge has metwith conspicuous success. Also he has aquitted himself well in thedifficult matter of putting Shakespeare's meter into Norwegian. 

The last two pages are taken up with a detailed study of singlepassages. The only serious error Monrad has noticed is the following: InAct II, 3 one of the murderers calls out "A light! A light!" Regardingthis passage Monrad remarks: "It is certainly a mistake to have thesecond murderer call out, "Bring a light here!" (Lys hid!) The murdererdoes not demand a light, but he detects a shimmer from Banquo'sapproaching torch. " The rest of the section is devoted to mere trifles. 

This is the sort of review which we should expect from an intelligentand well-informed man. Monrad was not a scholar, nor even a man ofdelicate and penetrating reactions. But he had sound sense and perfectself-assurance, which made him something of a Samuel Johnson in thelittle provincial Kristiania of his day. At any rate, he was the onlyone who took the trouble to review Hauge's translation, and even he wasdoubtless led to the task because of his personal interest in thetranslator. If we may judge from the stir it made in periodicalliterature, _Macbeth_ fell dead from the press. 

The tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth (1864) aroused a certaininterest in Norway, and little notes and articles are not infrequentin the newspapers and periodicals about that time. _IllustreretNyhedsblad_[4] has a short, popular article on Stratford-on-Avon. Itcontains the usual Shakespeare apocrypha--the Sir Thomas Lucy story, thestory of the apple tree under which Shakespeare and his companions sleptoff the effects of too much Bedford ale--and all the rest of it. Itmakes no pretense of being anything but an interesting hodge-podgefor popular consumption. The next year, 1864, the same periodicalpublished[5] on the traditional day of Shakespeare's birth a rather longand suggestive article on the English drama before Shakespeare. If thisarticle had been original, it might have had a certain significance, but, unfortunately, it is taken from the German of Bodenstedt. Theonly significant thing about it is the line following the title: "TilErindring paa Trehundredsaarsdagen efter Shakespeares Födsel, d. 23April, 1563. "

 [4. Vol. XII (1863), pp. 199 ff. ]

 [5. Vol. XIII (1864), pp. 65 ff. ]

More interesting than this, however, are the verses written by the thenhighly esteemed poet, Andreas Munch, and published in his own magazine, _For Hjemmet_, [6] in April, 1864. Munch rarely rises above mediocrityand his tribute to the bard of Avon is the very essence of it. He begins:

 I disse Dage gaar et vældigt Navn Fra Mund til Mund, fra Kyst til Kyst rundt Jorden-- Det straaler festligt over fjernest Havn, Og klinger selv igjennem Krigens Torden, Det slutter alle Folk i Aandens Favn, Og er et Eenheds Tegn i Striden vorden-- I Stjerneskrift det staaer paa Tidens Bue, Og leder Slægterne med Hjertelue. 

 [6. Vol. V, p. 572. ]

and, after four more stanzas, he concludes:

 Hos os har ingen ydre Fest betegnet Vort Folks Tribut til denne store Mand. Er vi af Hav og Fjelde saa omhegnet, At ei hans Straaler trænge til os kan? Nei, --Nordisk var hans Aand og netop egnet Til at opfattes af vort Norden-Land, Og mer maaske end selv vi tro og tænke, Har Shakespeare brudt for os en fremmed Lænke. 

One has a feeling that Munch awoke one morning, discovered from hiscalendar that Shakespeare's birthday was approaching, and ground outthis poem to fill space in _Hjemmet_. But his intentions are good. Noone can quarrel with the content. And when all is said, he probablyexpressed, with a fair degree of accuracy, the feeling of his time. It remains but to note a detail or two. First, that the poet, even indealing with Shakespeare, found it necessary to draw upon the prevailing"Skandinavisme" and label Shakespeare "Nordisk"; second, the accidentaltruth of the closing couplet. If we could interpret this as referringto Wergeland, who _did_ break the chains of foreign bondage, and gaveNorway a place in the literature of the world, we should have the firstreference to an interesting fact in Norwegian literary history. Butdoubtless we have no right to credit Munch with any such acumen. Thecouplet was put into the poem merely because it sounded well. 

More important than this effusion of bad verse from the poet of fashionwas a little article which Paul Botten Hansen wrote in _IllustreretNyhedsblad_[7] in 1865. Botten Hansen had a fine literary appreciationand a profound knowledge of books. The effort, therefore, to giveDenmark and Norway a complete translation of Shakespeare was sure tomeet with his sympathy. In 1861 Lembcke began his revision of Foersom'swork, and, although it must have come up to Norway from Copenhagenalmost immediately, no allusion to it is found in periodical literaturetill Botten Hansen wrote his review of Part (Hefte) XI. This partcontains _King John_. The reviewer, however, does not enter upon anycriticism of the play or of the translation; he gives merely a shortaccount of Shakespearean translation in the two countries beforeLembcke. Apparently the notice is written without special research, forit is far from complete, but it gives, at any rate, the best outline ofthe subject which we have had up to the present. Save for a few lines ofpraise for Foersom and a word for Hauge, "who gave the first accuratetranslation of this masterpiece (_Macbeth_) of which Dano-Norwegianliterature can boast before 1861, " the review is simply a looselyconnected string of titles. Toward the close Botten Hansen writes:"When to these plays (the standard Danish translations) we add (certainothers, which are given), we believe that we have enumerated all theDanish translations of Shakespeare. " This investigation has shown, however, that there are serious gaps in the list. Botten Hansen callsFoersom's the first Danish translation of Shakespeare. It is curiousthat he should have overlooked Johannes Boye's _Hamlet_ of 1777, orRosenfeldt's translation of six plays (1790-1792). It is less strangethat he did not know Sander and Rahbek's translation of the unaltered_Macbeth_ of 1801--which preceded Hauge by half a century--for this wasburied in Sander's lectures. Nor is he greatly to be blamed for hisignorance of the numerous Shakespearean fragments which the student mayfind tucked away in Danish reviews, from M. C. Brun's _Svada_ (1796) andon. Botten Hansen took his task very lightly. If he had read Foersom'snotes to his translation he would have found a clue of interest to himas a Norwegian. For Foersom specifically refers to a translation of ascene from _Julius Caesar_ in _Trondhjems Allehaande_. 

 [7. Vol. XIV, p. 96. ]

Lembcke's revision, which is the occasion of the article, is greetedwith approval and encouragement. There is no need for Norwegians to goabout preparing an independent translation. Quite the contrary. Thearticle closes: "Whether or not Lembcke has the strength and endurancefor such a gigantic task, time alone will tell. At any rate, it is theduty of the public to encourage the undertaking and make possible itscompletion. "

We come now to the most interesting chapter in the history ofShakespeare in Norway. This is a performance of _A Midsummer Night'sDream_ under the direction of Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson at ChristianiaTheater, April 17, 1865. The story belongs rather to the history ofShakespeare on the Norwegian stage, but the documents of the affair arecontributions to Shakespearean criticism and must, accordingly, bediscussed here. Bjørnson's fiery reply to his critics of April 28is especially valuable as an analysis of his own attitude towardShakespeare. 

Bjørnson became director of Christiania Theater in January, 1865, andthe first important performance under his direction was _A MidsummerNight's Dream_ (Skjärsommernatsdrömmen) in Oehlenschläger's translation, with music by Mendelssohn. [8] Bjørnson had strained the resourcesof the theater to the utmost to give the performance distinction. But the success was doubtful. _Aftenposten_ found it tiresome, and_Morgenbladet_, in two long articles, tore it to shreds. [9] It isworth while to review the controversy in some detail. 

 [8. Blanc. _Christianias Theaters Historie_, p. 196. ]

 [9. April 26-27, 1865. ]

The reviewer begins by saying that the play is so well known that itis needless to give an account of it. "But what is the meaning, " heexclaims, "of this bold and poetic mixture of clowns and fairies, ofmythology, and superstition, of high and low, of the earthly andthe supernatural? And the scene is neither Athens nor Greece, butShakespeare's own England; it is his own time and his own spirit. " Weare transported to an English grove in early summer with birds, flowers, soft breezes, and cooling shadows. What wonder that a man coming in fromthe hunt or the society of men should fill such a place with fairies andlovely ladies and people it with sighs, and passions, and stories? Andall this has been brought together by a poet's fine feeling. This it iswhich separates the play from so many others of its kind now so commonand often so well presented. Here a master's spirit pervades all, unitesall in lovely romance. Other plays are mere displays of scenery andcostume by comparison. Even the sport of the clowns throws the wholeinto stronger relief. 

Now, how should such a play be given? Obviously, by actors of the firstorder and with costumes and scenery the most splendid. This goes withoutsaying, for the play is intended quite as much to be seen as to beheard. To do it justice, the performance must bring out some of thesplendor and the fantasy with which it was conceived. As we read_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ it is easy to imagine the glorioussuccession of splendid scenes, but on the stage the characters becomeflesh and blood with fixed limitations, and the illusion is easily lostunless every agency is used to carry it out. Hence the need of lights, of rich costumes, splendid backgrounds, music, rhythm. 

The play opens in an apparently uninhabited wood. Suddenly all comesto life--gay, full, romantic life. This is the scene to which we aretransported. "It is a grave question, " continues the reviewer, "if it ispossible for the average audience to attain the full illusion which theplay demands, and with which, in reading, we have no difficulty. Onething is certain, the audience was under no illusion. Some, those who donot pretend to learning or taste, wondered what it was all about. Onlywhen the lion moved his tail, or the ass wriggled his ears were they atall interested. Others were frankly amused from first to last, no lessat Hermia's and Helen's quarrel than at the antics of the clowns. Stillothers, the cultivated minority, were simply indifferent. "

The truth is that the performance was stiff and cold. Not for an instantdid it suggest the full and passionate life which is the theme and thebackground of the play. Nor is this strange. _A Midsummer Night's Dream_is plainly beyond the powers of our theatre. Individual scenes were welldone, but the whole was a cheerless piece of business. 

The next day the same writer continues his analysis. He points out thatthe secret of the play is the curious interweaving of the real worldwith the supernatural. Forget this but for a moment, and the piecebecomes an impossible monstrosity without motivation or meaning. Shakespeare preserves this unity in duality. The two worlds seem to meetand fuse, each giving something of itself to the other. But this unitywas absent from the performance. The actors did not even know theirlines, and thus the spell was broken. The verse must flow from the lipsin a limpid stream, especially in a fairy play; the words must neverseem a burden. But even this elementary rule was ignored in ourperformance. And the ballet of the fairies was so bad that it mightbetter have been omitted. Puck should not have been given by a woman, but by a boy as he was in Shakespeare's day. Only the clown sceneswere unqualifiedly good, "as we might expect, " concludes the reviewersarcastically. 

The article closes with a parting shot at the costuming and the scenery. Not a little of it was inherited from "Orpheus in the Lower World. " Arewe so poor as that? Better wait, and for the present, give somethingwhich demands less of the theatre. The critic grants that thepresentation may prove profitable but, on the whole, Bjørnson mustfeel that he has assisted at the mutilation of a master. 

Bjørnson did not permit this attack to go unchallenged. He was not theman to suffer in silence, and in this case he could not be silent. Hisdirectorate was an experiment, and there were those in Christianiawho were determined to make it unsuccessful. It was his duty to setmalicious criticism right. He did so in _Aftenbladet_[10] in an articlewhich not only answered a bit of ephemeral criticism but which remainsto this day an almost perfect example of Bjørnson's polemicalprose--fresh, vigorous, genuinely eloquent, with a marvelous fusingof power and fancy. 

 [10. April 28. Reprinted in Bjørnson's _Taler og Skrifter_. Udgivet af C. Collin og H. Eitrem. Kristiania. 1912. Vol. I, pp. 263-270. ]

He begins with an analysis of the play: The play is called a dream. Butwherein lies the dream? 'Why, ' we are told, 'in the fact that fairiessport, that honest citizens, with and without asses' heads, put on acomedy, that lovers pursue each other in the moonlight. ' But where isthe law in all this? If the play is without law (Lov = organic unity), it is without validity. 

But it does have artistic validity. The dream is more than a fantasy. The same experiences come to all of us. "The play takes place, now inyour life, now in mine. A young man happily engaged or happily marrieddreams one night that this is all a delusion. He must be engaged to, hemust marry another. The image of the 'chosen one' hovers before him, buthe can not quite visualize it, and he marries with a bad conscience. Then he awakens and thanks God that it is all a bad dream (Lysander). Ora youth is tired of her whom he adored for a time. He even begins toflirt with another. And then one fine night he dreams that he worshipsthe very woman he loathes, that he implores her, weeps for her, fightsfor her (Demetrius). Or a young girl, or a young wife, who loves and isloved dreams, that her beloved is fleeing from her. When she follows himwith tears and petitions, he lifts his hand against her. She pursueshim, calls to him to stop, but she cannot reach him. She feels all theagony of death till she falls back in a calm, dreamless sleep. Or shedreams that the lover she cannot get comes to her in a wood and tellsher that he really does love her, that her eyes are lovelier than thestars, her hands whiter than the snow on Taurus. But other visions come, more confusing. Another, whom she has never given a thought, comes andtells her the same story. His protestations are even more glowing--andit all turns to contention and sorrow, idle pursuit and strife, till herpowers fail (Helena). 

"This is the dream chain of the lovers. The poet causes the man to dreamthat he is unfaithful, or that he is enamored of one whom he does notlove. And he makes the woman dream that she is deserted or that she ishappy with one whom she cannot get. And together these dreams tell us:watch your thoughts, watch your passions, you, walking in perfectconfidence at the side of your beloved. They (the thoughts and passions)may bring forth a flower called 'love in idleness'--a flower whichchanges before you are aware of it. The dream gives us reality reversed, but reversed in such a way that there is always the possibility that itmay, in an unguarded moment, take veritable shape. 

"And this dream of the lovers is given a paradoxical counterpart. Arespectable, fat citizen dreams one night that he is to experience thegreat triumph of his life. He is to be presented before the duke'sthrone as the greatest of heroes. He dreams that he cannot get dressed, that he cannot get his head attended to, because, as a matter of fact, his head is not his own excellent head, but the head of an ass with longears, a snout, and hair that itches. 'This is exactly like a fairy taleof my youth, ' he dreams. And indeed, it is a dream! The mountain opens, the captive princess comes forth and leads him in, and he rests his headin her lap all strewn with blossoms. The lovely trolls come and scratchhis head and music sounds from the rocks. It is characteristic ofShakespeare that the lovers do not dream fairy tales of their childhood. Higher culture has given them deeper passions, more intense personalrelations; in dreams they but continue the life of waking. But the goodweaver who lives thoroughly content in his own self-satisfaction and inthe esteem of his neighbors, who has never reflected upon anything thathas happened to him, but has received each day's blessings as they havecome--this man sees, the moment he lays his head on the pillow, thefairies and the fairy queen. To him the whole circle of childhoodfantasy reveals itself; nothing is changed, nothing but this absurdass's head which he wears, and this curious longing for dry, sweet hay. 

"This is the dream and the action of the play. Superficially, all thismagic is set in motion by the fairies; Theseus and his train, with whomcome hunting horn and hunting talk and processional--are, in reality, the incarnation of the festival. And the comedy at the close is added byway of counterpiece to the light, delicate fancies of the dream. It isthe thoughts we have thought, the painfully-wrought products of thewaking mind, given in a sparkle of mocking laughter against thebackground of nightly visions. See the play over and over again. Donot study it with Bottom's ass's head, and do not be so blasé that youreject the performance because it does not command the latest electricaleffects. "

Bjørnson then proceeds to discuss the staging. He admits by implicationthat the machinery and the properties are not so elaborate as theysometimes are in England, but points out that the equipment ofChristiania Theater is fully up to that which, until a short timebefore, was considered entirely adequate in the great cities of Europe. And is machinery so important? The cutting of the play used at thisperformance was originally made by Tieck for the court theater atPotsdam. From Germany it was brought to Stockholm, and later toChristiania. "The spirit of Tieck pervades this adaptation. It is easyand natural. The spoken word has abundant opportunity to make itselffelt, and is neither overwhelmed by theater tricks nor set aside bymachinery. Tieck, who understood stage machinery perfectly, gave it freeplay where, as in modern operas, machinery is everything. The same istrue of Mendelssohn. His music yields reverently to the spoken word. Itmerely accompanies the play like a new fairy who strews a strain or twoacross the stage before his companions enter, and lends them wings bywhich they may again disappear. Only when the words and the characterswho utter them have gone, does the music brood over the forest like amist of reminiscence, in which our imagination may once more synthesizethe picture of what has gone before. "

Tieck's adaptation is still the standard one. Englishmen often stageShakespeare's romantic plays more elaborately. They even show us a shipat sea in _The Tempest_. But Shakespeare has fled England; they are leftwith their properties, out of which the spirit of Shakespeare will notrise. It is significant that the most distinguished dramaturg ofGermany, Dingelstedt, planned a few years before to go to London withsome of the best actors in Germany to teach Englishmen how to playShakespeare once more. 

Bjørnson closes this general discussion of scenery and propertieswith a word about the supreme importance of imagination to the playgoer. "I cannot refrain from saying that the imagination that delights in thefamiliar is stronger and healthier than that which loses itself inlongings for the impossible. To visualize on the basis of a few andsimple suggestions--that is to possess imagination; to allow the imagesto dissolve and dissipate--that is to have no imagination at all. Everyallusion has a definite relation to the familiar, and if our playgoerscannot, after all that has been given here for years, feel the leastillusion in the presence of the properties in _A Midsummer Night'sDream_, then it simply means that bad critics have broken the spell. "Why should Norwegians require an elaborate wood-scene to be transportedto the living woods? A boulevardier of Paris, indeed, might have need ofit, but not a Norwegian with the great forests at his very doors. Andwhat real illusion is there in a waterfall tumbling over a paintedcurtain, or a ship tossing about on rollers? Does not such apparatusrather destroy the illusion? "The new inventions of stage mechaniciansare far from being under such perfect control that they do not oftenruin art. We are in a period of transition. Why should we here, who areobliged to wait a long time for what is admittedly satisfactory, commitall the blunders which mark the way to acknowledged perfection?"

It would probably be difficult to find definite and tangible evidenceof Shakespeare's influence in Bjørnson's work, and we are, therefore, doubly glad to have his own eloquent acknowledgement of his debtto Shakespeare. The closing passus of Bjørnson's article deservesquotation for this reason alone. Unfortunately I cannot convey its warm, illuminating style: "Of all the poetry I have ever read, Shakespeare's_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ has, unquestionably, had the greatestinfluence upon me. It is his most delicate and most imaginative work, appealing quite as much through its intellectual significance as throughits noble, humane spirit. I read it first in Eiksdal when I was writing_Arne_, and I felt rebuked for the gloomy feelings under the spell ofwhich that book was written. But I took the lesson to heart: I feltthat I had in my soul something that could produce a play with alittle of the fancy and joy of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_--and I maderesolutions. But the conditions under which a worker in art lives inNorway are hard, and all we say or promise avails nothing. But this Iknow: I am closer to the ideal of this play now than then, I have afuller capacity for joy and a greater power to protect my joy and keepit inviolate. And if, after all, I never succeed in writing such a play, it means that circumstances have conquered, and that I have not achievedwhat I have ever sought to achieve. 

"And one longs to present a play which has been a guiding star tooneself. I knew perfectly well that a public fresh from _Orpheus_ wouldnot at once respond, but I felt assured that response would come intime. As soon, therefore, as I had become acclimated as director andknew something of the resources of the theater, I made the venture. Thisis not a play to be given toward the end; it is too valuable as a meansof gaining that which is to be the end--for the players and for theaudience. So far as the actors are concerned, our exertions have beenprofitable. The play might doubtless be better presented--we shallgive it better next year--but, all in all, we are making progress. You may call this naivete, poetic innocence, or obstinacy andarrogance--whatever it is, this play is of great moment to me, for itis the link which binds me to my public, it is my appeal to the public. If the public does not care to be led whither this leads, then I am notthe proper guide. If people wish to get me out of the theater, they mayattack me here. Here I am vulnerable. "

In _Morgenbladet_ for May 1st the reviewer made a sharp reply. Heinsists again that the local theater is not equal to _A MidsummerNight's Dream_. But it is not strange that Bjørnson will not admit hisown failure. His eloquent tribute to the play and all that it has meantto him has, moreover, nothing to do with the question. All that he saysmay be true, but certainly such facts ought to be the very thing todeter him from giving Shakespeare into the hands of untrained actors. For if Bjørnson feels that the play was adequately presented, then weare at a loss to understand how he has been able to produce originalwork of unquestionable merit. One is forced to believe that he is hidinga failure behind his own name and fame. After all, concludes the writer, the director has no right to make this a personal matter. Criticismhas no right to turn aside for injured feelings, and all Bjørnson'sdeclarations about the passions of the hour have nothing to do withthe case. 

This ended the discussion. At this day, of course, one cannot passjudgment, and there is no reason why we should. The two things whichstand out are Bjørnson's protest against spectacular productions ofShakespeare's plays, and his ardent, almost passionate tribute to himas the poet whose influence had been greatest in his life. 

And then there is a long silence. Norwegian periodicals--there is notto this day a book on Shakespeare by a Norwegian--contain not a singlecontribution to Shakespearean criticism till 1880, when a church paper, _Luthersk Ugeskrift_[11] published an article which proved beyond cavilthat Shakespeare is good and safe reading for Lutheran Christians. The writer admits that Shakespeare probably had several irregularlove-affairs both before and after marriage, but as he grew older hisheart turned to the comforts of religion, and in his epitaph he commendshis soul to God, his body to the dust. Shakespeare's extreme objectivitymakes snap judgments unsafe. We cannot always be sure that hischaracters voice his own thoughts and judgments, but, on the other hand, we have no right to assume that they never do. The tragedies especiallyafford a safe basis for judgment, for in them characterization is of thegreatest importance. No great character was ever created which did notspring from the poet's own soul. In Shakespeare's characters sin, lust, cruelty, are always punished; sympathy, love, kindness are everywhereglorified. The writer illustrates his meaning with copious quotations. 

 [11. Vol. VII, pp. 1-12. ]

Apparently the good Lutheran who wrote this article felt troubled aboutthe splendor which Shakespeare throws about the Catholic Church. Butthis is no evidence, he thinks, of any special sympathy for it. ManyProtestants have been attracted by the pomp and circumstance of theCatholic Church, and they have been none the worse Protestants for that. The writer had the good sense not to make Shakespeare a Lutheran but, for the rest, the article is a typical example of the sort of criticismthat has made Shakespeare everything from a pious Catholic to a championof atheistic democracy. If, however, the readers of _Luthersk Ugeskrift_were led to read Shakespeare after being assured that they might do sosafely, the article served a useful purpose. 

Eight years later the distinguished litterateur and critic, Just Bing, wrote in _Vidar_[12], one of the best periodicals that Norway has everhad, a brief character study of Ophelia, which, though it containsnothing original, stands considerably higher as literary criticism thananything we have yet considered, with the sole exception of Bjørnson'sarticle in _Aftenbladet_, twenty-three years earlier. 

 [12. 1880, pp. 61-71. ]

Bing begins by defining two kinds of writers. First, those whose poweris their keen observation. They see things accurately and they securetheir effects by recording just what they see. Second, those writerswho do not merely see external phenomena with the external eye, butwho, through a miraculous intuition, go deeper into the soul of man. Molière is the classical example of the first type; Shakespeare of thesecond. To him a chance utterance reveals feelings, passions, wholelives--though he probably never developed the consequences of a chanceremark to their logical conclusion without first applying to them closeand searching rational processes. But it is clear that if a critic is toanalyze a character of Shakespeare's, he must not be content merely toobserve. He must feel with it, live with it. He must do so with specialsympathy in the case of Ophelia. 

The common characteristic of Shakespeare's women is their devotion tothe man of their choice and their confidence that this choice is wiseand happy. The tragedy of Ophelia lies in the fact that outward evidenceis constantly shocking that faith. Laertes, in his worldly-wise fashion, first warns her. She cries out from a broken heart though she promisesto heed the warning. Then comes Polonius with his cunning wisdom. ButOphelia's faith is still unshaken. She promises her father, however, tobe careful, and her caution, in turn, arouses the suspicion of Hamlet. Even after his wild outburst against her he still loves her. He begs herto believe in him and to remember him in her prayers. But suspicion goeson. Ophelia is caught between devotion and duty, and the grim eventsthat crowd upon her plunge her to sweet, tragic death. Nothing could bemore revealing than our last glimpse of her. Shakespeare's intuitiveknowledge of the soul was sure. The determining fact of her life was herlove for Hamlet: it is significant that when we see her insane not amention of it crosses her lips. 

Hamlet and Ophelia are the delicate victims of a tragic necessity. Theyare undone because they lose confidence in those to whom they cling withall the abandon of deep, spiritual souls. Hamlet is at last aroused todesperation; Ophelia is helplessly crushed. She is the finest womanof Shakespeare's imagination, and perhaps for that reason the mostdifficult to understand and the one least often appreciated. 

The next chapter in Norwegian Shakespeareana is a dull, unprofitableone--a series of articles on the Baconian theory appearing irregularlyin the monthly magazine, _Kringsjaa_. The first article appeared in thesecond volume (1894) and is merely a review of a strong pro-Baconoutburst in the American _Arena_. It is not worth criticising. Similararticles appeared in _Kringsjaa_ in 1895, the material this time beingtaken from the _Deutsche Revue_. It is the old ghost, the cipher in thefirst folio, though not Ignatius Donnelly's cryptogram. Finally, in1898, a new editor, Chr. Brinckmann, printed[13] a crushing reply to allthese cryptogram fantasies. And that is all that was ever published inNorway on a foolish controversy. 

 [13. _Kringsjaa_. Vol. XII, pp. 777 ff. The article upon which this reply was based was from the _Quarterly Review_. ]

It is a relief to turn from puerilities of this sort to TheodorCaspari's article in _For Kirke og Kultur_ (1895)[14]--_Grunddrag vedden Shakespeareske Digtning, i særlig Jevnförelse med Ibsens senereDigtning_. 

 [14. Vol. I, pp. 38 ff. ]

This article must be read with caution, partly because its analysisof the Elizabethan age is conventional, and therefore superficial, andpartly because it represents a direction of thought which eyed the laterwork of Ibsen and Bjørnson with distrust. These men had rejected thefaith of their fathers, and the books that came from them were signs ofthe apostasy. But _For Kirke og Kultur_ has been marked from its firstnumber by ability, conspicuous fairness, and a large catholicity, whichgive it an honorable place among church journals. And not even afanatical admirer of Ibsen will deny that there is more than a grain oftruth in the indictment which the writer of this article brings againsthim. 

The central idea is the large, general objectivity of Shakespeare'splays as contrasted with the narrow, selfish subjectivity of Ibsen's. The difference bottoms in the difference between the age of Elizabethand our own. Those were days of full, pulsing, untrammeled life. Menlived big, physical lives. They had few scruples and no nerves. Full-blooded passions, not petty problems of pathological psychology, were the things that interested poets and dramatists. They saw lifefully and they saw it whole. So with Shakespeare. His characters arebig, well-rounded men; they are not laboratory specimens. They live inthe real Elizabethan world, not in the hothouse of the poet's brain. Itis of no consequence that violence is done to "local color. " Shakespearebeheld all the world and all ages through the lens of his own time andcountry, but because the men he saw were actual, living beings, thecharacters he gives us, be they mythological figures, Romans, Greeks, Italians, or Englishmen, have universal validity. He went to Italy forhis greatest love-story. That gave him the right atmosphere. It issignificant that Ibsen once thought it necessary to seek a suggestivebackground for one of his greatest characters. He went to Finmarken forRebecca West. 

Shakespeare's characters speak in loud, emphatic tones and they giveutterance to clear, emphatic thoughts. There is no "twilight zone" intheir thinking. Ibsen's men and women, like the children at Rosmersholm, never speak aloud; they merely whimper or they whisper the politeinnuendos of the drawing room. The difference lies largely in thedifference of the age. But Ibsen is more decadent than his age. Thereare great ideas in our time too, but Ibsen does not see them. He seesonly the "thought. " Contrast with this Shakespeare's colossal scale. He is "loud-voiced" but he is also "many-voiced. " Ibsen speaks in asalon voice and always in one key. And the remarkable thing is thatShakespeare, in spite of his complicated plots, is always clear. Themain lines of the action stand out boldly. There is always speed andmovement--a speed and movement directly caused by powerful feelings. Hemakes his readers think on a bigger scale than does Ibsen. His passionsare sounder because they are larger and more expansive. 

Shakespeare is the dramatist of our average life; Ibsen, the poet ofthe rare exception. To Shakespeare's problems there is always an answer;underneath his storms there is peace, not merely filth and doubt. Thereis even a sense of a greater power--calm and immovable as historyitself. Ibsen's plays are nervous, hectic, and unbelieving. In the wordsof Rosmer: "Since there is no judge over us, we must hold a judgment dayfor ourselves. " Contrast this with Hamlet's soliloquy. And, finally, one feels sure in Shakespeare that the play means something. It has abeginning and an end. "What shall we say of plays like Ibsen's, in whichAct I and Act II give no clue to Act III, and where both question andanswer are hurled at us in the same speech?"

In the same year, 1895, Georg Brandes published in _Samtiden_, [15] atthat time issued in Bergen, two articles on _Shakespeare's Work in hisPeriod of Gloom_ (Shakespeare i hans Digtnings mørke Periode) whichembody in compact form that thesis since elaborated in his big work. Shakespeare's tragedies were the outcome of a deep pessimism that hadgrown for years and culminated when he was about forty. He was tired ofthe vice, the hollowness, the ungratefulness, of life. The immediatecause must remain unknown, but the fact of his melancholy seems clearenough. His comedy days were over and he began to portray a side of lifewhich he had hitherto kept hidden. _Julius Caesar_ marks the transition. In Brutus we are reminded that high-mindedness in the presence of apractical situation often fails, and that practical mistakes are oftenas fatal as moral ones. From Brutus, Shakespeare came to Hamlet, acharacter in transition from fine youth, full of illusions, to a manhoodwhose faith is broken by the hard facts of the world. This is distinctlyautobiographical. _Hamlet_ and Sonnet 66 are of one piece. Shakespearewas disillusioned. Add to this his struggle against his enemy, Puritanism, and a growing conviction that the miseries of life bottomin ignorance, and the reason for his growing pessimism becomes clear. From Hamlet, whom the world crushes, to Macbeth, who faces it with itsown weapons, yet is haunted and terrified by what he does, the step iseasy. He knew Macbeth as he knew Hamlet. 

 [15. Vol. VI, pp. 49 ff. ]

The scheming Iago, too, he must have known, for he has portrayedhim with matchless art. "But _Othello_ was a mere monograph; _Lear_is a cosmic picture. Shakespeare turns from _Othello_ to _Lear_ inconsequence of the necessity which the poet feels to supplement andround out his beginning. " _Othello_ is noble chamber music; _Lear_ is asymphony played by a gigantic orchestra. It is the noblest of all thetragedies, for in it are all the storm and tumult of life, all thatwas struggling and raging in his own soul. We may feel sure thatthe ingratitude he had met with is reflected in Goneril and Regan. Undoubtedly, in the same way, the poet had met the lovely Cleopatraand knew what it was to be ensnared by her. 

Brandes, as has often been pointed out, did not invent this theoryof Shakespeare's psychology but he elaborated it with a skill andpersuasiveness which carried the uncritical away. 

In his second article Brandes continues his analysis of Shakespeare'spessimism. In the period of the great tragedies there can be no doubtthat Shakespeare was profoundly pessimistic. There was abundant reasonfor it. The age of Elizabeth was an age of glorious sacrifices, but itwas also an age of shameless hypocrisy, of cruel and unjust punishments, of downright oppression. Even the casual observer might well grow sickat heart. A nature so finely balanced as Shakespeare's suffered athousandfold. Hence this contempt for life which showed only corruptionand injustice. Cressida and Cleopatra are sick with sin and evil; themen are mere fools and brawlers. 

There is, moreover, a feeling that he is being set aside for youngermen. We find clear expression of this in _All's Well That Ends Well_, in _Troilus and Cressida_. There is, too, in _Troilus and Cressida_a speech which shows the transition to the mood of _Coriolanus_, anaristocratic contempt for the mass of mankind. This is the famous speechin which Ulysses explains the necessity of social distinctions. Notein this connection Casca's contemptuous reference to the plebeians, Cleopatra's fear of being shown to the mob. Out of this feeling grew_Coriolanus_. The great patrician lives on the heights, and will nothear of bending to the crowd. The contempt of Coriolanus grew to thestorming rage of Timon. When Coriolanus meets with ingratitude, he takesup arms; Timon is too supremely indifferent to do even this. 

Thus Shakespeare's pessimism grew from grief over the power of evil(Othello) and misery over life's sorrows, to bitter hatred (Timon). And when he had raged to the uttermost, something of the resignationof old age came to him. We have the evidence of this in his last works. Perhaps, as in the case of his own heroes, a woman saved him. Brandesfeels that the evolution of Shakespeare as a dramatist is to be tracedin his women. We have first the domineering scold, reminding himpossibly of his own domestic relations (Lady Macbeth); second, thewitty, handsome women (Portia, Rosalind); third, the simple, naive women(Ophelia, Desdemona); fourth, the frankly sensuous women (Cleopatra, Cressida); and, finally, the young woman viewed with all an old man'sjoy (Miranda). Again his genius exercises his spell. Then, likeProspero, he casts his magician's staff into the sea. 

In 1896 Brandes published his great work on Shakespeare. It arrestedattention immediately in every country of the world. Never had a book sofascinating, so brilliant, so wonderfully suggestive, been written onShakespeare. The literati were captivated. But alas, scholars were not. They admitted that Brandes had written an interesting book, that he hadaccumulated immense stores of information and given to these saplessmaterials a new life and a new attractiveness. But they pointed out thatnot only did his work contain gross positive errors, but it consisted, from first to last, of a tissue of speculations which, howeveringenious, had no foundation in fact and no place in cool-headedcriticism. [16] Theodor Bierfreund, one of the most brilliant Shakespearescholars in Denmark, almost immediately attacked Brandes in a longarticle in the Norwegian periodical _Samtiden_. [17]

 [16. Cf. Vilhelm Møller in _Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst och Industri_. 1896, pp. 501-519. ]

 [17. _Samtiden_, 1896. (VII), pp. 382 ff. ]

He acknowledges the great merits of the work. It is an enormously richcompilation of Shakespeare material gathered from the four corners ofthe earth and illuminated by the genius of a great writer. He gives thefullest recognition to Brandes' miraculous skill in analyzing charactersand making them live before our eyes. But he warns us that Brandes is nocritical student of source materials, and that we must be on our guardin accepting his conclusions. It is not so certain that the sonnets meanall that Brandes would have them mean, and it is certain that we mustbe cautious in inferring too much from _Troilus and Cressida_ and_Pericles_ for, in the opinion of the reviewer, Shakespeare probably hadlittle or nothing to do with them. He then sketches briefly his theorythat these plays cannot be Shakespeare's, a theory which he laterelaborated in his admirably written monograph, _Shakespeare og hansKunst_. [18] This, however, belongs to the study of Shakespeareancriticism in Denmark. 

 [18. Copenhagen, 1898. ]

So far as I have been able to find, Bierfreund's review was the only onepublished in Norway immediately after the publication of Brandes' work, but in 1899, S. Brettville Jensen took up the matter again in _For Kirkeog Kultur_[19] and, in 1901, Christen Collin vigorously assailed in_Samtiden_ that elaborate and fanciful theory of the sonnets which playsso great a part in Brandes' study of Shakespeare. 

 [19. Vol. VI (1899), pp. 400 ff. ]

Brettville Jensen praises Brandes highly. He is always interesting, inharmony with his age, and in rapport with his reader. "But his book is afantasy palace, supported by columns as lovely as they are hollow andinsecure, and hovering in rainbow mists between earth and sky. " Brandeshas rare skill in presenting hypotheses as facts. He has attempted toreconstruct the life of Shakespeare from his works. Now this is a modeof criticism which may yield valuable results, but clearly it must beused with great care. Shakespeare knew the whole of life, but how hecame to know it is another matter. Brandes thinks he has found thesecret. Back of every play and every character there is a personalexperience. But this is rating genius altogether too cheap. One mustconcede something to the imagination and the creative ability of thepoet. To relate everything in Shakespeare's dramas to the experiencesof Shakespeare the man, is both fanciful and uncritical. 

The same objection naturally holds regarding the meaning of the sonnetswhich Brandes has made his own. Here we must bear in mind the fact thatmuch of the language in the sonnets is purely conventional. We shouldhave a difficult time indeed determining just how much is biographicaland how much belongs to the stock in trade of Elizabethan sonneteers. Brettville Jensen points out that if the sonnets are the expression ofgrief at the loss of his beloved, it is a queer contradiction thatSonnet 144, which voices his most poignant sorrow, should date from1599, the year, according to Brandes, when Shakespeare's comedy periodbegan!

It is doubtless true that the plays and even the sonnets mark greatperiods in the life of the poet, but we may be sure that the relationbetween experience and literary creation was not so literal as Brandeswould have us believe. The change from mood to mood, from play to play, was gradual, and it never destroyed Shakespeare's poise and sanity. Weshall not judge Shakespeare rightly if we believe that personal feelingrather than artistic truth shaped his work. 

Two years later Collin, a critic of fine insight and appreciation, wrotein _Samtiden_[20] an article on the sonnets of Shakespeare. He begins bypicturing Shakespeare's surprise if he could rise from his grave in thelittle church at Stratford and look upon the pompous and rather naivebust, and hear the strange tongues of the thousands of pilgrims at hisshrine. Even greater would be his surprise if he could examine theponderous tomes in the Shakespeare Memorial Library at Birmingham whichhave been written to explain him and his work. And if any of thesevolumes could interest him at all it would doubtless be those in whichingenious critics have attempted to discover the poet in the plays andthe poems. Collin then gives a brief survey of modern Shakespeareancriticism--Furnivall, Dowden, Brandl, Boas, ten Brink, and, morerecently, Sidney, Lee, Brandes, and Bierfreund. An important object ofthe study of these men has been to fix the chronology of the plays. Theyseldom fully agree. Sidney Lee and the Danish critic, Bierfreund, do notaccept the usual theory that the eight tragedies from _Julius Caesar_ to_Coriolanus_ reflect a period of gloom and pessimism. In their opinionpsychological criticism has, in this instance, proved a dismal failure. 

 [20. Vol. XII, pp. 61 ff. ]

The battle has raged with particular violence about the sonnets. Most scholars assume that we have in them a direct presentation(fremstilling) of a definite period in the life of the poet. And byplacing this period directly before the creation of _Hamlet_, Brandeshas succeeded in making the relations to the "dark lady" a crisis inShakespeare's life. The story, which, as Brandes tells it, has aremarkable similarity to an ultra-modern naturalistic novel, becomeseven more piquant since Brandes knows the name of the lady, nay, even ofthe faithless friend. All this information Brandes has, of course, takenfrom Thomas Tyler's introduction to the Irving edition of the sonnets(1890), but his passion for the familiar anecdote has led him toembellish it with immense enthusiasm and circumstantiality. 

The hypothesis, however, is essentially weak. Collin disagreesabsolutely with Lee that the sonnets are purely conventional, withoutthe slightest biographical value. Mr. Lee has weakened his case byadmitting that "key-sonnet" No. 144 is autobiographical. Now, if thisbe true, then one must assume that the sonnets set forth Shakespeare'srelations to a real man and a real woman. But the most convincingargument against the Herbert-Fitton theory lies in the chronology. It iscertain that the sonnet fashion was at its height immediately after thepublication of Sidney's sequence in 1591, and it seems equally certainthat it had fallen off by 1598. This chronology is rendered probableby two facts about Shakespeare's work. First, Shakespeare employs thesonnet in dialogue in _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and in _Romeo andJuliet_. These plays belong to the early nineties. Second, the moodsof the sonnets exactly correspond, on the one hand, to the exuberantsensuality of _Venus and Adonis_, on the other, to the restraint of the_Lucrece_. 

An even safer basis for determining the chronology of the sonnets Collinfinds in the group in which the poet laments his poverty and his outcaststate. If the sonnets are autobiographical--and Collin agrees withBrandes that they are--then this group (26, 29, 30, 31, 37, 49, 66, 71-75, 99, 110-112, 116, 119, 120, 123, and 124) must refer to a timewhen the poet was wretched, poor, and obscure. And in this case, thesonnets cannot be placed at 1598-99, when Shakespeare was neither poornor despised, a time in which, according to Brandes, he wrote his gayestcomedies. 

It seems clear from all this that the sonnets cannot be placed so lateas 1598-1600. They do not fit the facts of Shakespeare's life at thistime. But they do fit the years from 1591 to 1594, and especially theyears of the plague, 1592-3, when the theaters were generally closed, and Shakespeare no doubt had to battle for a mere existence. In 1594Shakespeare's position became more secure. He gained the favor ofSouthampton and dedicated the _Rape of Lucrece_ to him. 

Collin develops at this point with a good deal of fullness histheory that the motifs of the sonnets recur in _Venus and Adonis_and _Lucrece_--in _Venus and Adonis_, a certain crass naturalism;in _Lucrece_ a high and spiritual morality. In the sonnets the sameantithesis is found. Compare Sonnet 116--in praise of friendship--with129, in which is pictured the tyranny and the treachery of sensual love. These two forces, sensual love and platonic friendship, were mightycultural influences during Shakespeare's apprentice years and the youngpoet shows plainly that he was moved by both. 

If all this be true, then the Herbert-Fitton theory falls to the ground, for in 1597 Herbert was only seventeen. But unquestionably the sonnetsare autobiographical. They reveal with a poignant power Shakespeare'ssympathy, his unique ability to enter into another personality, hiscapacity of imaginative expansion to include the lives of others. Compare the noble sonnet 112, which Collin translates:

 Din kjærlighed og medynk dækker til det ar, som sladderen paa min pande trykket. Lad andre tro og sige, hvad de vil, -- du kjærlig mine feil med fortrin smykket. 

 Du er mit verdensalt, og fra din mund jeg henter al min skam og al min ære. For andre er jeg død fra denne stund, og de for mig som skygger blot skal være. 

 I avgrunds dyp jeg al bekymring kaster! for andres røst min høresans er sløv. Hvadenten de mig roser eller laster, jeg som en hugorm er og vorder døv. 

 Saa helt du fylder ut min sjæl herinde, at hele verden synes at forsvinde. 

At this point the article in _Samtiden_ closes. Collin promises to givein a later number, a metrical translation of a number of significantsonnets. The promised renderings, however, never appeared. Thirteenyears later, in 1914, the author, in a most interesting and illuminatingbook, _Det Geniale Menneske_, [21] a study of "genius" and its relationto civilization, reprinted his essay in _Samtiden_ and supplemented itwith three short chapters. In the first of these he endeavors to showthat in the sonnets Shakespeare gives expression to two distincttendencies of the Renaissance--the tendency toward a loose andunregulated gratification of the senses, and the tendency toward anelevated and platonic conception of friendship. Shakespeare sought inboth of these a compensation for his own disastrous love affair andmarriage. But the healing that either could give was at best transitory. There remained to him as a poet of genius one resource. He could gratifyhis own burning desire for a pure and unselfish love by living in hismighty imagination the lives of his characters. "He who in his yearningfor the highest joys of love had been compelled to abandon hope, founda joy mingled with pain, in giving of his life to lovers in whom thelonging of William Shakespeare lives for all time. 

"He has loved and been loved. It was he whom Sylvia, Hermia, Titania, Portia, Juliet, Beatrice, Rosalind, Viola, and Olivia loved, --andOphelia, Desdemona, Hermione and Miranda. "

 [21. Chr. Collin, Christiania. 1914. H. Aschehoug & Co. ]

In the second chapter Collin argues, as he had done in his essay on_Hamlet_[22] that Shakespeare's great tragedies voice no pessimism, butthe stern purpose to strengthen himself and his contemporaries againstthe evils and vices of Jacobean England--that period of moral andintellectual disintegration which followed the intense life of theElizabethan age. Shakespeare battles against the ills of society as theGreek dramatists had done, by showing sin and wickedness as destroyersof life, and once this is done, by firing mankind to resistance againstthe forces of ruin and decay. "To hold the mirror up to nature, " thatmen may see the devastation which evil and vice bring about in thesocial body. And to do this he does not, like some modern writers, shunmoralizing. He warns against sensual excess in Adam's speech in _As YouLike It_, II, 3:

 Let me be your servant; Though I look old, yet am I strong and lusty; For in my youth I never did apply Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood; Nor did not with unbashful forehead woo The means of weakness and debility;

 [22. See pp. 71 ff. Below. ]

Or, compare the violent outburst against drunkenness in _Hamlet_ Act 1, Sc. 4, and the stern warning against the same vice in _Othello_, where, indeed, Cassius' weakness for strong drink is the immediate occasion ofthe tragic complication. In like manner, Shakespeare moralizes againstlawless love in the _Merry Wives_, in _Troilus and Cressida_, in_Hamlet_, in _Lear_. 

On the other hand, Shakespeare never allows artistic scruples tostand in the way of exalting simple, domestic virtues. Simple conjugalfidelity is one of the glories of Hamlet's illustrious father and of thestern, old Roman, Coriolanus; the young prince, Malcolm, is as chasteand innocent as the young barbarians of whom Tacitus tells. 

In a final section, Collin connects this view of Hamlet which he hasdeveloped in his essay on _Hamlet_ and the Sonnets, with the theory ofhuman civilization which his book so suggestively advances. 

The great tragedies from _Hamlet_ to _Timon of Athens_ are notautobiographical in the sense that they are reflections of Shakespeare'sown concrete experience. They are not the record of a bitter personalpessimism. In the years when they were written Shakespeare was contentedand prosperous. He restored the fortunes of his family and he was hailedas a master of English without a peer. It is therefore a priori quiteunlikely that the tragic atmosphere of this period should go backto purely personal disappointments. The case is more likely this:Shakespeare had grown in power of sympathy with his fellows and histime. He had become sensitive to the needs and sorrows of the societyabout him. He could put himself in the place of those who are sick inmind and heart. And in consequence of this he could preach to thisgeneration the simple gospel of right living and show to them thepsychic weakness whence comes all human sorrow. 

And through this expansion of his ethical consciousness what hadhe gained? Not merely a fine insight as in _Macbeth_, _Antony andCleopatra_, and _Coriolanus_, an insight which enables him to treat withcomprehending sympathy even great criminals and traitors, but a highserenity and steady poise which enables him to write the romances of hislast years--_Cymbeline_, _A Winter's Tale_, and _The Tempest_. He hadcome to feel that human life, after all, with its storms, is a littlething, a dream and a fata morgana, which soon must give place to apermanent reality:

 We are such stuff As dreams are made of, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. 

In 1904 Collin wrote in _Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst ochIndustri_[23] a most suggestive article on Hamlet. He again dismissesthe widely accepted theory of a period of gloom and increasing pessimismas baseless. The long line of tragedies cannot be used to prove this. They are the expression of a great poet's desire to strengthen mankindin the battle of life. 

 [23: This article is reprinted in _Det Geniale Menneske_ above referred to. It forms the second of a group of essays in which Collin analyzes the work of Shakespeare as the finest example of the true contribution of genius to the progress and culture of the race. Preceding the study of _Hamlet_ is a chapter called _The Shakespearean Controversy_, and following it is a study of Shakespeare the Man. This is in three parts, the first of which is a reprint of an article in _Samtiden_ (1901). 

 In _Det Geniale Menneske_ Collin defines civilization as that higher state which the human race has attained by means of "psychic organs"--superior to the physical organs. The psychic organs have been created by the human intellect and they are controlled by the intellect. Had man been dependent upon the physical organs solely, he would have remained an animal. His psychic organs have enabled him to create instruments, tangible, such as tools and machines; intangible, such as works of art. These are psychic organs and with their aid man has become a civilized being. 

 The psychic organs are the creation of the man of genius. To create such organs is his function. The characteristics, then, of the genius are an immense capacity for sympathy and an immense surplus of power; sympathy, that he may know the needs of mankind; power, that he may fashion those great organs of life by which the race may live and grow. 

 In the various chapters of his book, Collin analyzes in an illuminating way the life and work of Wergeland, Ibsen, and Bjørnson as typical men of genius whose expansive sympathy gave them insight and understanding and whose indefatigable energy wrought in the light of their insight mighty psychic organs of cultural progress. 

 He comes then to Shakespeare as the genius par excellence. The chapter on the _Shakespearean Controversy_ gives first a survey of the development of modern scientific literary criticism from Herder to Taine and Saint Beuve. He goes on to detail the application of this method to the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare. Furnivall, Spalding, and Brandes have attempted to trace the genesis and the chronology of the plays. They would have us believe that the series of tragedies--_Hamlet_, _Macbeth_, _Othello_, _Lear_, _Antony and Cleopatra_, _Troilus and Cressida_, _Coriolanus_, and _Timon_ are the records of an increasing bitterness and pessimism. Brandes and Frank Harris, following Thomas Tyler have, on the basis of the sonnets, constructed a fascinating, but quite fantastic romance. 

 Vagaries such as these have caused some critics, such as Sidney Lee and Bierfreund, to declare that it is impossible on the basis of the plays to penetrate to Shakespeare the man. His work is too purely objective. Collin is not willing to admit this. He maintains that the scientific biographical method of criticism is fundamentally sound. But it must be rationally applied. The sequence which Brandes has set up is quite impossible. Goswin Kønig, in 1888, applying the metrical tests, fixed the order as follows: _Hamlet_, _Troilus and Cressida_, _Measure for Measure_, _Othello_, _Timon_, and _Lear_, and, in another group, _Macbeth_, _Antony and Cleopatra_, and _Coriolanus_. These results are confirmed by Bradley in his _Shakespearean Tragedy_. 

 Collin accepts this chronology. A careful study of the plays in this order shows a striking community of ethical purpose between the plays of each group. In the plays of the first group, the poet assails with all his mighty wrath what to him seems the basest of all wickedness, treachery. It is characteristic of these plays that none of the villains attains the dignity of a great tragic hero. They are without a virtue to redeem their faults. Shakespeare's conception of the good and evil in these plays approaches a medieval dualism. In the plays of the second group the case is altered. There is no longer a crude dualism in the interpretation of life. Shakespeare has entered into the soul of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, of Antony and Cleopatra, of Coriolanus, and he has found underneath all that is weak and sinful and diseased, a certain nobility and grandeur. He can feel with the regicides in Macbeth; he no longer exposes and scourges; he understands and sympathizes. The clouds of gloom and wrath have cleared away, and Shakespeare has achieved a serenity and a fine poise. 

 It follows, then, that the theory of a growing pessimism is untenable. We must seek a new line of evolution. ]

We need dwell but little on Collin's sketch of the "Vorgeschichte"of _Hamlet_, for it contributes nothing that is new. _Hamlet_ was acharacteristic "revenge tragedy" like the "Spanish Tragedy" and a wholehost of others which had grown up in England under the influence, directand indirect, of Seneca. He points out in a very illuminating way howadmirably the "tragedy of blood" fitted the times. Nothing is morecharacteristic of the renaissance than an intense joy in living. Butexactly as the appetite for mere existence became keen, the tragedy ofdeath gained in power. The most passionate joy instinctively calls upthe most terrible sorrow. There is a sort of morbid caution here--afeeling that in the moment of happiness it is well to harden oneselfagainst the terrible reaction to come. Conversely, the contemplation ofsuffering intensifies the joys of the moment. At all events, in such atime, emotions become stronger, colors are brighter, and contrasts aremore violent. The "tragedy of blood, " therefore, was more than a learnedimitation. Its sound and fury met the need of men who lived and diedintensely. 

The primitive _Hamlet_ was such a play. Shakespeare took over, doubtlesswith little change, both fable and characters, but he gave to both a newspiritual content. Hamlet's revenge gained a new significance. It is nolonger a fight against the murderer of his father, but a battle against"a world out of joint. " No wonder that a simple duty of blood revengebecomes a task beyond his powers. He sees the world as a mass offaithlessness, and the weight of it crushes him and makes him sick atheart. This is the tragedy of Hamlet--his will is paralyzed and, withit, his passion for revenge. He fights a double battle, against hisuncle and against himself. The conviction that Shakespeare, and not hispredecessor, has given this turn to the tragedy is sustained by theother plays of the same period, _Lear_ and _Timon of Athens_. Theyexhibit three different stages of the same disease, a disease in whichman's natural love of fighting is turned against himself. 

Collin denies that the tragedy of Hamlet is that of a contemplative soulwho is called upon to solve great practical problems. What right have weto assume that Hamlet is a weak, excessively reflective nature? Hamletis strong and regal, capable of great, concrete attainments. But he cando nothing except by violent and eccentric starts; his will is paralyzedby a fatal sickness. He suffers from a disease not so uncommon in modernliterature--the tendency to see things in the darkest light. Is it farfrom the pessimism of Hamlet to the pessimism of Schopenhauer andTolstoi? Great souls like Byron and Heine and Ibsen have seen life asHamlet saw it, and they have struggled as he did, "like wounded warriorsagainst the miseries of the times. "

But from this we must not assume that Shakespeare himself waspessimistic. To him Hamlet's state of mind was pathological. One mightas well say that he was a murderer because he wrote _Macbeth_, amisogynist because he created characters like Isabella and Ophelia, awife murderer because he wrote _Othello_, or a suicide because he wrote_Timon of Athens_ as to say that he was a pessimist because he wrote_Hamlet_--the tragedy of an irresolute avenger. This interpretationis contradicted by the very play itself. "At Hamlet's side is thethoroughly healthy Horatio, almost a standard by which his abnormalitymay be measured. At Lear's side stand Cordelia and Kent, faithfuland sound to the core. If the hater of mankind, Timon, had writtena play about a rich man who was betrayed by his friends, he wouldunquestionably have portrayed even the servants as scoundrels. ButShakespeare never presented his characters as all black. Pathologicalstates of mind are not presented as normal. "

Collin admits, nevertheless, that there may be somethingautobiographical in the great tragedies. Undoubtedly Shakespeare feltthat there was an iron discipline in beholding a great tragedy. To liveit over in the soul tempered it, gave it firmness and resolution, and itis not impossible that the sympathetic, high-strung Shakespeare neededjust such discipline. But we must not forget the element of play. All art is, in a sense, a game with images and feelings and humanutterances. "In all this century-old discussion about the subtlety ofHamlet's character critics have forgotten that a piece of literature is, first of all, a festive sport with clear pictures, finely organizedemotions, and eloquent words uttered in moments of deep feeling. " Thepoet who remembers this will use his work to drive from the earthsomething of its gloom and melancholy. He will strengthen himselfthat he may strengthen others. 

I have tried to give an adequate synopsis of Collin's article but, inaddition to the difficulties of translating the language, there are thedifficulties, infinitely greater, of putting into definite words allthat the Norwegian hints at and suggests. It is not high praise to saythat Collin has written the most notable piece of Shakespeare criticismin Norway; indeed, nothing better has been written either in Norway orDenmark. 

The study of Shakespeare in Norway was not, as the foregoing shows, extensive or profound, but there were many Norwegian scholars who hadat least considerable information about things Shakespearean. No greatpiece of research is to be recorded, but the stimulating criticism ofCaspari, Collin, Just Bing, and Bjørnson is worth reading to this day. 

The same comment may be made on two other contributions--Wiesener's_Almindelig Indledning til Shakespeare_ (General Introduction toShakespeare), published as an introduction to his school edition of_The Merchant of Venice_, [24] and Collin's _Indledning_ to his editionof the same play. Both are frankly compilations, but both are admirablyorganized, admirably written, and full of a personal enthusiasm whichgives the old, sometimes hackneyed facts a new interest. 

 [24. _Shakespeares The Merchant of Venice. Med Anmærkninger og Indledning_. Udgivet af G. Wiesener. Kristiania, 1880. ]

Wiesener's edition was published in 1880 in Christiania. The text isthat of the Cambridge edition with a few necessary cuttings to adapt itfor school reading. His introduction covers fifty-two closely printedpages and gives, within these limits, an exceedingly detailed account ofthe English drama, the Elizabethan stage, Shakespeare's life and work, and a careful study of _The Merchant of Venice_ itself. The editor doesnot pretend to originality; he has simply tried to bring together wellascertained facts and to present them in the simplest, clearest fashionpossible. But the _Indledning_ is to-day, thirty-five years after it waswritten, fully up to the standard of the best annotated school editionsin this country or in England. It is, of course, a little dry andschematic; that could hardly be avoided in an attempt to compress such avast amount of information into such a small compass, but, for the mostpart, the details are so clear and vivid that their mass ratherheightens than blurs the picture. 

From the fact that nothing in this introduction is original, it ishardly necessary to criticise it at length; all that may be demandedis a short survey of the contents. The whole consists of two greatdivisions, a general introduction to Shakespeare and a specialintroduction to _The Merchant of Venice_. The first division is, inturn, subdivided into seven heads: 1. _The Pre-Shakespearean Drama_. 2. _The Life of Shakespeare_. 3. _Shakespeare's Works--Order andChronology_. 4. _Shakespeare as a Dramatist_. 5. _Shakespeare'sVersification_. 6. _The Text of Shakespeare_. 7. _The Theatres ofShakespeare's Time_. This introduction fills thirty-nine pages andpresents an exceedingly useful compendium for the student and thegeneral reader. The short introduction to the play itself discussesbriefly the texts, the sources, the characters, Shakespeare's relationto his material and, finally, the meaning of the play. The last sectionis, however, a translation from Taine and not Wiesener's at all. 

The text itself is provided with elaborate notes of the usual text-booksort. In addition to these there is, at the back, an admirable seriesof notes on the language of Shakespeare. Wiesener explains in simple, compact fashion some of the differences between Elizabethan and modernEnglish and traces these phenomena back to their origins in Anglo-Saxonand Middle English. Inadequate as they are, these linguistic notescannot be too highly praised for the conviction of which they bearevidence--that a complete knowledge of Shakespeare without a knowledgeof his language is impossible. To the student of that day these notesmust have been a revelation. 

The second text edition of a Shakespearean play in Norway was Collin's_The Merchant of Venice_. [25] His introduction covers much the sameground as Wiesener's, but he offers no sketch of the Elizabethan drama, of Shakespeare's life, or of his development as a dramatic artist. Onthe other hand, his critical analysis of the play is fuller and, insteadof a mere summary, he gives an elaborate exposition of Shakespeare'sversification. 

 [25. _The Merchant of Venice_. Med Indledning og Anmærkninger ved Chr. Collin. Kristiania. 1902. ]

Collin is a critic of rare insight. Accordingly, although he saysnothing new in his discussion of the purport and content of the play, he makes the old story live anew. He images Shakespeare in the midst ofhis materials--how he found them, how he gave them life and being. Thesection on Shakespeare's language is not so solid and scientific asWiesener's, but his discussion of Shakespeare's versification isboth longer and more valuable than Wiesener's fragmentary essay, andShakespeare's relation to his sources is treated much more suggestively. 

He points out, first of all, that in Shakespeare's "classical" plays thecharacters of high rank commonly use verse and those of low rank, prose. This is, however, not a law. The real principle of the interchange ofprose and verse is in the emotions to be conveyed. Where these aretense, passionate, exalted, they are communicated in verse; where theyare ordinary, commonplace, they are expressed in prose. This rule willhold both for characters of high station and for the most humble. In ActI, for example, Portia speaks in prose to her maid "obviously becauseShakespeare would lower the pitch and reduce the suspense. In thefollowing scene, the conversation between Shylock and Bassanio begins inprose. But as soon as Antonio appears, Shylock's emotions are roused totheir highest pitch, and his speech turns naturally to verse--eventhough he is alone and his speech an aside. A storm of passions setshis mind and speech in rhythmic motion. And from that point on, theconversations of Shylock, Bassanio, and Antonio are in verse. In short, rhythmic speech when there is a transition to strong, more dramaticfeeling. "

The use of prose or verse depends, then, on the kind and depth offeeling rather than on the characters. "In Act II Launcelot Gobbo andhis father are the only ones who employ prose. All the others speak inverse--even the servant who tells of Bassanio's arrival. Not only that, but he speaks in splendid verse even though he is merely announcing amessenger:"

 "Yet have I not seen So likely an ambassador of love, " etc. 

Again, in _Lear_, the servant who protests against Cornwall's cruelty toGloster, nameless though he is, speaks in noble and stately lines:

 Hold your hand, my lord; I've served you ever since I was a child; But better service have I never done you Than now to bid you hold. 

When the dramatic feeling warrants it, the humblest rise to the highestpoetry. The renaissance was an age of deeper, mightier feelings thanour own, and this intense life speaks in verse, for only thus can itadequately express itself. 

All this is romantic enough. But it is to be doubted if the men of therenaissance were so different from us that they felt an instinctive needof bursting into song. The causes of the efflorescence of Elizabethandramatic poetry are not, I think, to be sought in such subtleties asthese. 

Collin further insists that the only way to understand Shakespeare'sversification is to understand his situations and his characters. Rulesavail little. If we do not _feel_ the meaning of the music, we shallnever understand the meaning of the verse. Shakespeare's variations fromthe normal blank verse are to be interpreted from this point of view. Hence what the metricists call "irregularities" are not irregularitiesat all. Collin examines the more important of these irregularities andtries to account for them. 

1. Short broken lines as in I, 1-5: _I am to learn. _ Antonio completesthis line by a shrug of the shoulders or a gesture. "It would beremarkable, " concludes Collin, "if there were no interruptions or pauseseven though the characters speak in verse. " Another example of thisbreaking of the line for dramatic purposes is found in I, 3-123 whereShylock suddenly stops after "say this" as if to draw breath and arrangehis features. (Sic!)

2. A verse may be abnormally long and contain six feet. This isfrequently accidental, but in _M of V_ it is used at least oncedeliberately--in the oracular inscriptions on the caskets:

 "Who chooseth me shall gain what men desire. " "Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves. " "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he has. "

Collin explains that putting these formulas into Alexandrines gives thema stiffness and formality appropriate to their purpose. 

3. Frequently one or two light syllables are added to the close of theverse:

 Sit like his grandsire cut in alabaster. 

or

 Sleep when he wakes and creep into the jaundice. 

Again, in III, 2-214 we have two unstressed syllables:

 But who comes here? Lorenzo and his infidel?

"Shakespeare uses this unaccented gliding ending more in his later worksto give an easier more unconstrained movement. "

4. Occasionally a syllable is lacking, and the foot seems to halt as inV, 1-17:

 As far as Belmont. In such a night, etc. 

Here a syllable is lacking in the third foot. But artistically this isno defect. We cannot ask that Jessica and Lorenzo always have the rightword at hand. The defective line simply means a pause and, therefore, instead of being a blemish, is exactly right. 

5. On the other hand, there is often an extra light syllable before thecaesura. (I, 1-48):

 Because you are not merry; and 'twere as easy, etc. 

This extra syllable before the pause gives the effect of a slightretardation. It was another device to make the verse easy andunconstrained. 

6. Though the prevailing verse is iambic pentameter, we rarely findmore than three or four real accents. The iambic movement is constantlybroken and compelled to fight its way through. This gives an addeddelight, since the ear, attuned to the iambic beat, readily recognizesit when it recurs. The presence of a trochee is no blemish, but arelief:

 Vailing her high tops higher than her ribs. (I, 1-28)

This inverted stress occurs frequently in Norwegian poetry. Wergelandwas a master of it and used it with great effect, for instance, in hispoem to Ludvig Daa beginning:

 Med døden i mit hjerte, og smilet om min mund, --

All this gives to Shakespeare's verse a marvellous flexibility andpower. Nor are these devices all that the poet had at his disposal. Wefrequently find three syllables to the foot, giving the line a certainfluidity which a translator only rarely can reproduce. Finally, afurther difficulty in translating Shakespeare lies in the richness ofthe English language in words of one syllable. What literature can rivalthe grace and smoothness of:

 In sooth I know not why I am so sad. 

Ten monosyllables in succession! It is enough to drive a translator todespair. Or take:

 To be or not to be, that is the question. 

To summarize, no other language can rival English in dramatic dialoguein verse, and this is notably true of Shakespeare's English, where theword order is frequently simpler and more elastic than it is in modernEnglish. 

Two reviews of Collin quickly appeared in a pedagogical magazine, _DenHöiere Skole_. The first of them, [26] by Ivar Alnæs, is a brief, ratherperfunctory review. He points out that _The Merchant of Venice_ isespecially adapted to reading in the gymnasium, for it is unified instructure, the characters are clearly presented, the language is notdifficult, and the picture is worth while historically. Collin has, therefore, done a great service in making the play available forteaching purposes. Alnæs warmly praises the introduction; it isclear, full, interesting, and marked throughout by a tone of genuineappreciation. But right here lies its weakness. It is not always easyto distinguish ascertained facts from Collin's imaginative combinations. Every page, however, gives evidence of the editor's endeavor to give tothe student fresh, stimulating impressions, and new, revealing points ofview. This is a great merit and throws a cloak over many eccentricitiesof language. 

 [26. Vol. 5 (1903), pp. 51 ff. ]

But Collin was not to escape so easily. In the same volume Dr. August Western[27] wrote a severe criticism of Collin's treatmentof Shakespeare's versification. 

 [27. _Ibid. _ pp. 142 ff. ]

He agrees, as a matter of course, that Shakespeare is a master ofversification, but he does not believe that Collin has proved it. Thatblank verse is the natural speech of the chief characters or of theminor characters under emotional stress, that prose is _usually_ used byminor characters or by important characters under no emotional strainis, in Dr. Western's opinion, all wrong. Nor is prose per se morerestful than poetry. And is not Shylock more emotional in his scene(I, 3) than any of the characters in the casket scene immediatelyfollowing (II, 1)? According to Collin, then, I, 3 should be in verseand II, 1 in prose! Equally absurd is the theory that Shakespeare'scharacters speak in verse because their natures demand it. Does Shylockgo contrary to nature in III, 1? There is no psychological reason forVerse in Shakespeare. He wrote as he did because convention prescribedit. The same is true of Goethe and Schiller, of Bjørnson and Ibsen intheir earlier plays. Shakespeare's lapses into prose are, moreover, easyto explain. There must always be something to amuse the gallery. ActIII, 1 must be so understood, for though Shakespeare was undoubtedlymoved, the effect of the scene was comic. The same is true of thedialogue between Portia and Nerissa in Act I, and of all the scenesin which Launcelot Gobbo appears. 

Western admits, however, that much of the prose in Shakespeare cannotbe so explained; for example, the opening scenes in _Lear_ and _TheTempest_. And this brings up another point, i. E. , Collin's suppositionthat Shakespeare's texts as we have them are exactly as he wrote them. When the line halts, Collin simply finds proof of the poet's fine ear!The truth probably is that Shakespeare had a good ear and that he alwayswrote good lines, but that he took no pains to see that these lines werecorrectly printed. Take, for example, such a line as:

 As far as Belmont. In such a night

This would, if written by anyone else, always be considered bad, and Dr. Western does not believe that Collin's theory of the pauses will hold. The pause plays no part in verse. A line consists of a fixed numberof _heard_ syllables. Collin would say that a line like I, 1-73:

 I will not fail you, is filled out with a bow and a swinging of the hat. Then why are thelines just before it, in which Salarino and Salario take leave of eachother, not defective? Indeed, how can we be sure that much of whatpasses for "Shakespeare's versification" is not based on printers'errors? In the folio of 1623 there are long passages printed in prosewhich, after closer study, we must believe were written in verse--theopening of _Lear_ and _The Tempest_. Often, too, it is plain thatthe beginnings and endings of lines have been run together. Take thepassage:

 _Sal_: Why, then you are in love. 

 _Ant_: Fie, fie!

 _Sal_: Not in love neither? Then let us say you are sad--

The first line is one foot short, the second one foot too long. ThisCollin would call a stroke of genius; each _fie_ is a complete foot, and the line is complete! But what if the line were printed thus:

 _Sal_: Why, then you are in love. 

 _Ant_: Fie, fie!

 _Sal_: Not in Love neither? Then let us say you are sad. 

or possibly:

 Love neither? Then let's say that you are sad. 

Another possible printer's error is found in I, 3-116:

 With bated breath and whispering humbleness Say this; Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last. 

Are we here to imagine a pause of four feet? And what are we to do withthe first folio which has

 Say this; Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last. 

all in one line? Perhaps some printer chose between the two. At anyrate, Collin's theory will not hold. In the schools, of course, onecannot be a text critic but, on the other hand, one must not praise inShakespeare what may be the tricks of the printer's devil. The text isnot always faultless. 

Finally, Dr. Western objects to the statement that the difficulty intranslating Shakespeare lies in the great number of monosyllables andgives

 In sooth, I know not why I am so sad

as proof. Ten monosyllables in one line! But this is not impossible inNorwegian:

 For sand, jeg ved ei, hvi jeg er saa trist--

It is not easy to translate Shakespeare, but the difficulty goes deeperthan his richness in words of one syllable. 

With the greater part of Dr. Western's article everyone will agree. Itis doubtful if any case could be made out for the division of prose andverse based on psychology. Shakespeare probably wrote his plays in versefor the same reason that Goethe and Schiller and Oehlenschläger did. Itwas the fashion. And how difficult it is to break with fashion or withold tradition, the history of Ibsen's transition from poetry to proseshows. It is equally certain that in Collin's _Introduction_ it isdifficult to distinguish ascertained facts from brilliant speculation. But it is not easy to agree with Dr. Western that Collin's explanationof the "pause" is a tissue of fancy. 

In the first place, no one denies that the printers have at timesplayed havoc with Shakespeare's text. Van Dam and Stoffel, to whose bookWestern refers and whose suggestions are directly responsible for thisarticle, have shown this clearly enough. But when Dr. Western arguesthat because printers have corrupted the text in some places, they mustbe held accountable for every defective short line, we answer, it doesnot follow. In the second place, why should not a pause play a part inprosody as well as in music? Recall Tennyson's verse:

 Break, break, break, On thy cold, grey stones, o sea!

where no one feels that the first line is defective. Of course theanswer is that in Tennyson no accented syllable is lacking. But it isdifficult to understand what difference this makes. When the reader hasfinished pronouncing _Belmont_ there _must_ be a moment's hesitationbefore Lorenzo breaks in with:

 In such a night

and this pause may have metrical value. The only judge of verse, afterall, is the hearer, and, in my opinion, Collin is right when he pointsout the value of the slight metrical pause between the bits of repartee. Whether Shakespeare counted the syllables beforehand or not, is anothermatter. In the third place, Collin did not quote in support of histheory the preposterous lines which Dr. Western uses against him. Collindoes quote I, 1-5:

 I am to learn. 

and I, 1-73:

 I will not fail you

is a close parallel, but Collin probably would not insist that histheory accounts for every case. As to Dr. Western's other example ofgood meter spoiled by corrupt texts, Collin would, no doubt, admitthe possibility of the proposed emendations. It would not alter hiscontention that a pause in the line, like a pause in music, is notnecessarily void, but may be very significant indeed. 

The array of Shakespearean critics in Norway, as we said at thebeginning, is not imposing. Nor are their contributions important. But they show, at least, a sound acquaintance with Shakespeare andShakespeareana, and some of them, like the articles of Just Bing, Brettville Jensen, Christen Collin, and August Western, are interestingand illuminating. Bjørnson's article in _Aftenbladet_ is not merelysuggestive as Shakespearean criticism, but it throws valuable lighton Bjørnson himself and his literary development. When we come to thedramatic criticism of Shakespeare's plays, we shall find renewedevidence of a wide and intelligent knowledge of Shakespeare in Norway. 

CHAPTER III

Performances Of Shakespeare's Plays In Norway

_Christiania_

The first public theater in Christiania was opened by the Swedishactor, Johan Peter Strömberg, on January 30, 1827, but no Shakespeareproduction was put on during his short and troubled administration. Not quite two years later this strictly private undertaking became asemi-public one under the immediate direction of J. K. Böcher, and atthe close of the season 1829-30, Böcher gave by way of epilogue tothe year, two performances including scenes from Holberg's _Melampe_, Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, and Oehlenschläger's _Aladdin_. The Danish actorBerg played Hamlet, but we have no further details of the performance. We may be sure, however, that of the two translations available, Boye'sand Foersom's, the latter was used. _Hamlet_, or a part of it, was thusgiven for the first time in Norway nearly seventeen years after Foersomhimself had brought it upon the stage in Denmark. [1]

 [1. Blanc: _Christianias Theaters Historie_, p. 51. ]

More than fourteen years were to elapse before the theater tookup Shakespeare in earnest. On July 28, 1844, the first completeShakespearean play was given. This was _Macbeth_ in Foersom's versionof Schiller's "bearbeitung, " which we shall take up in our studies ofShakespeare in Denmark. [2] No reviews of it are to be found in thenewspapers of the time, not even an announcement. This, however, doesnot prove that the event was unnoticed, for the press of that day wasa naive one. Extensive reviews were unknown; the most that the publicexpected 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 nextseason, being given for the first time on January 3, 1845. Wulff'sDanish translation was used. Blanc says in his _Historie_[3] thatDesdemona and Iago were highly praised, but that the play as a wholewas greatly beyond the powers of the theater. 

 [3. See p. 94, note 1. ]

Nearly eight years later, November 11, 1852, _Romeo and Juliet_ inFoersom's translation received its Norwegian premiere. The actingversion 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 atremendous 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 commonat the time; "Everyone knows with what colors the immortal Shakespearedepicts human passions. In _Othello_, jealousy; in _Hamlet_, despair;in _Romeo and Juliet_, love, are sung in tones which penetrate to thedepths of the soul. Against the background of bitter feud, the love ofRomeo and Juliet stands out victorious and beneficent. Even if we cannotcomprehend this passion, we can, at least, feel the ennobling power ofthe story. " Both of the leading parts are warmly praised. Of Wiehe thereviewer says: "Der var et Liv af Varme hos ham i fuldt Maal, og dengrændseløse Fortvivlelse blev gjengivet med en næsten forfærdeligTroskab. "

 [4. See Aumont og Collin: _Det Danske Nationalteater_. V Afsnit, pp. 118 ff. ]

 [5. _Christiania Posten_. November 15, 1845. ]

 [6. _Morgenbladet_. November 15, 1845. ]

The same season (Dec. 11, 1852) the theater also presented _As YouLike It_ in the Danish version by Sille Beyer. The performance of twoShakespearean plays within a year may rightly be called an ambitiousundertaking for a small theatre without a cent of subsidy. _ChristianiaPosten_ says: "It is a real kindness to the public to make it acquaintedwith these old masterpieces. One feels refreshed, as though comingout of a bath, after a plunge into their boundless, pure poetry. Themarvellous thing about this comedy (_As You Like It_) is its wonderful, spontaneous freshness, and its freedom from all sentimentality andemotional nonsense. " The acting, says the critic, was admirable, butits high quality must, in a measure, be attributed to the sympathy andenthusiasm of the audience. Wiehe is praised for his interpretation ofOrlando and Jomfru Svendsen for her Rosalind. [7] Apparently none of thereviewers noticed that Sille Beyer had turned Shakespeare upside down. Her version was given for the last time on Sept. 25, 1878, and in thisconnection an interesting discussion sprang up in the press. 

 [7. _Christiania Posten_. Dec. 12, 1852. ]

The play was presented by student actors, and the performancewas therefore less finished than it would have been under othercircumstances. _Aftenposten_ was doubtless right when it criticised thedirector for entrusting so great a play to unpractised hands, assumingthat Shakespeare should be played at all. "For our part, we do notbelieve the time far distant when Shakespeare will cease to be aregular part of the repertoire. "[8] To this statement a contributor in_Aftenposten_ for Sept. 28 objected. He admits that Shakespeare wrotehis plays for a stage different from our own, that the ease with whichElizabethan scenery was shifted gave his plays a form that makes themdifficult to play today. Too often at a modern presentation we feel thatwe 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 aplace in the repertoire of the theater of the Germanic world. So longas we admit that in the delineation of character, in the presentationof noble figures, and in the mastery of dialogue, Shakespeare isunexcelled, so long we must admit that Shakespeare has a place on themodern stage. "

 [8. _Aftenposten_. Sept. 21, 1878. ]

Where did _Aftenposten_'s reviewer get the idea that Shakespeare's playsare not adapted to the modern stage? Was it from Charles Lamb? At anyrate, it is certain that he anticipated a movement that has led to manydevices both in the English-speaking countries and in Germany toreproduce the stage conditions under which Shakespeare's plays wereperformed 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 inthe newspapers. We know that it was given in the curiously pervertedarrangement by Sille Beyer and was presented twelve times from January15, 1854 to May 23, 1869. On that day a new version based on Lembcke'stranslation was used, and in this form the play was given eight timesthe following seasons. Since January 24, 1882, it has not been performedin Norway. [9]

 [9. See Blanc's _Fortegnelse_. P. 93. ]

At the beginning of the next season, October 29, 1854, _Much Ado AboutNothing_ was introduced to Kristiania theater-goers under the title_Blind Alarm_. The translation was by Carl Borgaard, director of thetheater. But here, too, contemporary documents leave us in the dark. There is merely a brief announcement in the newspapers. Blanc informsus that Jomfru Svendsen played Hero, and Wiehe, Benedict. [10]

 [10. See Blanc's _Fortegnelse_. P. 93. ]

After _Blind Alarm_ Shakespeare disappears from the repertoire fornearly four years. A version of _The Taming of the Shrew_ under thetitle _Hun Maa Tæmmes_ was given on March 28, 1858, but with no greatsuccess. Most of the papers ignored it. _Aftenbladet_ merely announcedthat it had been given. [11]

 [11. _Aftenbladet_. March 22, 1858. ]

_Viola_, Sille Beyer's adaptation of _Twelfth Night_ was presented atChristiania Theater on November 20, 1860, the eighth of Shakespeare'splays to be presented in Norway, and again not merely in a Danish textbut 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 whichtheater-goers had been sickened for a season or two. "The theaterfinally justified its existence, " says _Morgenbladet_, [12] "by aperformance of one of Shakespeare's plays. Viola was beautifully done. "The writer then explains in conventional fashion the meaning of theEnglish title and goes on--"But since the celebration of _Twelfth Night_could interest only the English, the Germans have "bearbeidet" the playand centered the interest around Viola. We have adopted this version. "He approves of Sille Beyer's cutting, though he admits that much is lostof the breadth and overwhelming romantic fulness that mark the original. But this he thinks is compensated for by greater intelligibility and theresulting dramatic effect. "Men hvad Stykket ved saadan Forandring, Beklippelse, og Udeladelse saaatsige taber af sin Fylde idet ikke altdet Leende, Sorgløse og Romantiske vandre saa ligeberettiget side omside igjennem Stykket, mens det Øvrige samler sig om Viola, det opveiesved den større Forstaaelighed for vort Publikum og denne mere afrundedesceniske Virkning, Stykket ved Bearbeidelsen har faaet. " As the piece isarranged now, Viola and her brother are not on the stage at the sametime until Act V. Both rôles may therefore be played by Jomfru Svendsen. The critic is captivated by her acting of the double rôle, andJørgensen's Malvolio and Johannes Brun's Sir Andrew Aguecheek sharewith her the glory of a thoroughly successful performance. 

 [12. November 23, 1860. ]

Sille Beyer's _Viola_ was given twelve times. From the thirteenthperformance, January 21, 1890, _Twelfth Night_ was given in a new formbased on Lembcke's translation. 

A thorough search through the newspaper files fails to reveal even aslight notice of _The Merchant of Venice_ (Kjøbmanden i Venedig) playedfor the first time on Sept. 17, 1861. Rahbek's translation was used, andthis continued to be the standard until 1874, when, beginning with theeighth 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 onApril 17, 1865. The play was given ten times from that date tillMay 27, 1866. In spite of this unusual run it appears to have been onlymoderately successful, and when Bjørnson dropped it in the spring of1866, 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 actingversion was based on Lembcke's translation. In this new shape it hasbeen played twenty-seven times up to January, 1913. 

The interesting polemic which Bjørnson's production occasioned hasalready been discussed at some length. This may be added, however:A play which, according to the poet's confession, influenced his life asthis one did, has played an important part in Norwegian literature. Theinfluence may be intangible. It is none the less real. 

More popular than any of the plays which had thus far been presented inNorway was _A Winter's Tale_, performed at Christiania Theater for thefirst time on May 4, 1866. The version used had, however, but a faintresemblance to the original. It was a Danish revision of Dingelstedt's_Ein Wintermärchen_. I shall discuss this Holst-Dingelstedt text inanother place. At this point it is enough to say that Shakespeare ishighly diluted. It seems, nevertheless, to have been successful, forbetween the date of its premiere and March 21, 1893, when it was givenfor the last time, it received fifty-seven performances, easily breakingall records for Shakespearean plays at the old theater. And at the newNational Theater, where it has never been given, no Shakespearean play, with the exception of _The Taming of the Shrew_ has approached itsrecord. 

_Aftenbladet_[13] in its preliminary review said: "Although this isnot one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth putting on, especially in the form which Dingelstedt has given to it. It wasreceived with the greatest enthusiasm. " But _Aftenbladet's_ promisedcritical review never appeared. 

 [13. May 5, 1866. ]

More interesting and more important than most of the performanceswhich we have thus far considered is that of _Henry IV_ in 1867, whileBjørnson was still director. To his desire to give Johannes Brun anopportunity for the display of his genius in the greatest of comic rôleswe owe this version of the play. Bjørnson obviously could not give bothparts, and he chose to combine cuttings from the two into a single playwith Falstaff as the central figure. The translation used was Lembcke'sand the text was only slightly norvagicized. 

Bjørnson's original prompt book is not now available. In 1910, however, H. 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 mayassume that in all essentials the prompt book of 1910 reproduces that of1867. 

In this _Kong Henrik IV_ the action opens with I Henry IV, II-4, and ActI consists of this scene freely cut and equally freely handled in thedistribution of speeches. The opening of the scene, for example, is cutaway entirely and replaced by a brief account of the robbery put naivelyinto the mouth of Poins. The opening of Act II is entirely new. Sinceall the historical scenes of Act I of the original have been omitted, itbecomes 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 ofthe nobles and of his own difficult situation. Then follows the king'sspeech 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. SirWalter Blunt does not appear. His rôle is taken by Warwick. 

Act II, Sc. 2 of Bjørnson's text follows Part I, Act III, Sc. 3 closely. 

Act III, Sc. 1 corresponds with Part I, Act III, Sc. 1 to the pointwhere Lady Mortimer and Lady Percy enter. This episode is cut and thescene 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 ofFalstaff, and follows it to the end of the scene. To this is added mostof Scene 4, but there is little left of the original action. Only theFalstaff episodes are retained intact. 

The last act (IV) is a wonderful composite. Scene 1 corresponds closelyto Part II, Act III, Sc. 4, but it is, as usual, severely cut. Scene 2reverts back to Part II, Act III, Sc. 2 and is based on this scene toline 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 willshow that this collection of episodes, chaotic as it seems, makes noineffective play. With a genius--and a genius Johannes Brun was--asFalstaff, one can imagine that the piece went brilliantly. The pressreceived it favorably, though the reviewers were much too critical toallow Bjørnson's mangling of the text to go unrebuked. 

_Aftenbladet_ has a careful review. [14] The writer admits that in ourday it requires courage and labor to put on one of Shakespeare'shistorical plays, for they were written for a stage radically differentfrom ours. In the Elizabethan times the immense scale of these"histories" presented no difficulties. On a modern stage the merebulk makes a faithful rendition impossible. And the moment one startstampering with Shakespeare, trouble begins. No two adapters will agreeas to what or how to cut. Moreover, it may well be questioned whetherany such cutting as that made for the theater here would be tolerated inany other country with a higher and older Shakespeare "Kultur. " Theattempt to fuse the two parts of _Henry IV_ would be impossible in acountry with higher standards. "Our theater can, however, ventureundisturbed to combine these two comprehensive series of scenes intoone which shall not require more time than each one of them singly--aventure, to be sure, which is not wholly without precedent in foreigncountries. It is clear that the result cannot give an adequate notion ofShakespeare's 'histories' in all their richness of content, but it does, perhaps, give to the theater a series of worth-while problems to workout, the importance of which should not be underestimated. The attempt, too, has made our theater-goers familiar with Shakespeare's greatestcomic character, apparently to their immense delight. Added to all thisis the fact that the acting was uniformly excellent. "

 [14. February 18, 1867. ]

But by what right is the play called Henry IV? Practically nothing isleft of the historical setting, and the spectator is at a loss to knowjust what the whole thing is about. Certainly the whole emphasis isshifted, for the king, instead of being an important character isovershadowed by Prince Hal. The Falstaff scenes, on the other hand, areleft almost in their original fulness, and thus constitute a much moreimportant part of the play than they do in the original. The articlecloses with a glowing tribute to Johannes Brun as Falstaff. 

_Morgenbladet_[15] goes into greater detail. The reviewer seems to thinkthat Shakespeare had some deep purpose in dividing the material into twoparts--he wished to have room to develop the character of Prince Henry. "Accordingly, in the first part he gives us the early stages of PrinceHal's growth, beginning with the Prince of Wales as a sort of superiorrake and tracing the development of his better qualities. In Part II wesee the complete assertion of his spiritual and intellectual powers. "The writer overlooks the fact that what Shakespeare was writing first ofall--or rather, what he was revising--was a chronicle. If he requiredmore than five acts to give the history of Henry IV he could use ten andcall it two plays. If, in so doing, he gave admirable characterization, it was something inherent in his own genius, not in the materials withwhich he was working. 

 [15. February 17, 1867. ]

The history, says the reviewer, and the Falstaff scenes are thebackground for the study of the Prince, each one serving a distinctpurpose. But here the history has been made meaningless and the Falstaffepisodes have been put in the foreground. He points out that balance, proportion, and perspective are all lost by this. Yet, granting thatsuch revolutionizing of a masterpiece is ever allowable, it must beadmitted that Bjørnson has done it with considerable skill. Bjørnson'spurpose is clear enough. He knew that Johannes Brun as Falstaff wouldscore a triumph, and this success for his theater he was determined tosecure. The same motive was back of the version which Stjernstrøm put onin Stockholm, and there can be little doubt that his success suggestedthe idea to Bjørnson. The nature of the cutting reveals the purpose atevery step. For instance, the scene in which the Gadskill robbery ismade clear, is cut entirely. We thus lose the first glimpse of thesterner and manlier side of the royal reveller. In fact, if Bjørnson hadbeen frank he would have called his play _Falstaff--based on certainscenes 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 liveand delight us with it! It is one of his most superb creations. The castas a whole is warmly praised. It is interesting to note that at theclose of the review the critic suggests that the text be revised withHagberg's Swedish translation at hand, for Lembcke's Danish containsmany 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 thepress was about what it had been a quarter of a century before. _Aftenposten_'s[16] comment is characteristic: "The play is turnedupside down. The comic sub-plot with Falstaff as central figure isbrought forward to the exclusion of all the rest. More than this, whatis retained is shamelessly altered. " Much more scathing is a shortreview by Christian Elster in the magazine _Kringsjaa_. [17] The play, he declares, has obviously been given to help out the box office byspeculating in the popularity of Falstaff. "There is no unity, nocoherence, no consistency in the delineation of characters, and evenfrom 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 itaccepted Falstaff for what he was regardless of the violence done to theoriginal. The Norwegian public cared little about the wars, little evenabout the king and the prince; but people will tell one today of thoseglorious evenings when they sat in the theater and revelled in JohannesBrun as the big, elephantine knight. 

In the spring of 1813, Foersom himself brought out _Hamlet_ on theDanish stage. Nearly sixty years were to pass before this play was puton in Norway, March 4, 1870. 

The press was not lavish in its praise. _Dagbladet_[18] remarksthat though the performance was not what it ought to have been, theaudience followed it from first to last with undivided attention. _Aftenbladet_[19] has a long and interesting review. Most of it isgiven over to a criticism of Isaachson's Hamlet. First of all, saysthe reviewer, Isaachson labors under the delusion that every line iscryptic, embodying a secret. This leads him to forget the volume of thepart and to invent all sorts of fanciful interpretations for details. Thus he loses the unity of the character. Things are hurried through toa conclusion and the fine transitions are lost. For example, "Oh, thatthis too, too solid flesh would melt" is started well, but the speech atonce gains in clearness and decision until one wonders at the close whysuch a Hamlet does not act at once with promptness and vigor. There are, to be sure, occasional excellences, but they do not conceal the factthat, 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 inNorway--twenty-eight times at the old Christiania Theater, and (fromOctober 31, 1907) seventeen times at the new National Theater. Itsrevival in 1907, after an intermission of twenty-four years, was acomplete success, although _Morgenbladet_[20] complained that theperformance lacked light and inspiration. The house was full and theaudience appreciative. 

 [20. November 1, 1907. ]

_Aftenposten_[21] found the production admirable. Christensen's Hamletwas a stroke of genius. "Han er voxet i og med Rollen; han har trængtsig ind i den danske Prins' dybeste Individualitet. " And of the revivalthe paper says: "The performance shows that a national theater can solvedifficult problems when the effort is made with sympathy, joy, anddevotion 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 Theaterwas provided. All the actors were artists of distinction; and it isnot 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 agood deal of interest. Next to the curiosity about the play itself, thechief attraction has been Brun as Falstaff. And though Falstaff as lovergives no such opportunities as Falstaff, the mock hero, Brun makes anotable rôle out of it because he knows how to seize upon and bring outall 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 Norwegianstage. In _Illustreret Tidende_ for July 12, 1874, K. A. Winterhjelm hasa short appreciation of his work. "Johannes Brun has, as nearly as wecan estimate, played something like three hundred rôles at ChristianiaTheater. Many of them, to be sure, are minor parts--but there remainsa goodly number of important ones, from the clown in the farce to thechief parts in the great comedies. Merely to enumerate his greatsuccesses would carry us far afield. We recall in passing that hehas given us Falstaff both in _Henry IV_ and in _The Merry Wives ofWindsor_, Bottom in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, and Autolycus in_A Winter's Tale_. Perhaps he lacks something of the nobleman we feelthat 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 playsto be put on in Kristiania, neither the newspapers nor the magazinesgive us any clew. If we may believe a little puff in _Aftenposten_ forJanuary 20, 1874, the staging was to be magnificent. _Coriolanus_ wasplayed in a translation by Hartvig Lassen for the first time on January21, 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, butapparently the occasion was not considered significant, for there isscarcely 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 newone--_Julius Caesar_, on March 22, 1888. It had the unheard ofdistinction of being acted sixteen times in one month, from the premierenight to April 22. Yet the papers passed it by with indifference. Mostof 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 ChristianiaTheater or at the National Theater, which replaced the old ChristianiaTheater in 1899. From October, 1899 to January, 1913 the NationalTheater has presented eight Shakespearean plays, but every one ofthem 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 ofthe theater at Bergen is more interesting than that of the theater atChristiania. Established in 1850, while Christiania Theater was stilllargely Danish, to foster Norwegian dramatic art, it is associated withthe greatest names in Norwegian art and letters. The theater owes itsorigin mainly to Ole Bull; Henrik Ibsen was official playwright from1851 to 1857, and Bjørnson was director from 1857 to 1859. For a dozenyears or more "Den Nationale Scene i Bergen" led a precarious existenceand finally closed its doors in 1863. In 1876 the theater was reopened. During the first period only two Shakespearean plays weregiven--_Twelfth Night_ and _As You Like It_. 

_As You Like It_ in Stille Beyer's version was played twice during theseason 1855-56, on September 30 and October 3. The press is silent aboutthe performances, but doubtless we may accept Blanc's statement that thetask 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_ ina stage version adapted from the German of Deinhardstein. The celebratedLaura Svendsen played the double rôle of Sebastian-Viola withconspicuous 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. _BergensTidende_[27] calls the production "a creditable piece of amateurtheatricals, " insisting in a review of some length that the youngtheater cannot measure up to the demands which a play of Shakespeare'smakes. _Bergensposten_ is less severe. Though far from faultless, thepresentation was creditable, in some details excellent. But, quite apartfrom its absolute merits, there is great satisfaction in seeing thetheater undertake plays that are worth while. [28] Both papers agreethat 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'stranslation and adaptation of Dingelstedt's German acting version_Ein Wintermärchen_. The press greeted it enthusiastically. _BergensTidende_[29] says: "_A Winter's Tale_ was performed at our theateryesterday in a manner that won the enthusiastic applause of a largegathering. The principal actors were called before the curtain again andagain. It is greatly to the credit of any theater to give a Shakespearedrama, and all the more so when it can do it in a form as artisticallyperfect as was yesterday's presentation. "

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

Concerning _Othello_, third in order in the Shakespearean repertoire inBergen, the reviews of the first performance, November 13, 1881, areconflicting. _Bergens Tidende_[30] is all praise. It has no hesitationin pronouncing Johannesen's Iago a masterpiece. _Bergensposten_[31]calls the performance passable but utterly damns Johannesen--"nothingshort of a colossal blunder. " Hr. Johannesen is commended to the easilyaccessible commentaries of Taine and Genée, and to Hamlet's speech tothe players. Desdemona and Cassio are dismissed in much the samefashion. 

 [30. November 14, 1881. ]

 [31. November 15, 1881. ]

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

_Bergens Addressecontoirs Efterretninger_[32] agrees with_Bergensposten_ in its estimate of Johannesen. "He gives us only thevillain in Iago, not the cunning Ensign who deceives so many. " ButDesdemona was thoroughly satisfying. 

 [32. November 15, 1881. ]

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

Three different groups of _Hamlet_ performances have been given inBergen. In September, 1883, the Ophelia scenes from Act IV were given;the complete play, however, was not given till November 28, 1886. Thepress, [33] for once, was unanimous in declaring the production asuccess. It is interesting that an untried actor at his debut wasentrusted with the rôle. But, to judge from the press comments, Hr. Løchen more than justified the confidence in him. His interpretation ofthe 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 thedirection of the well-known August Lindberg played _Hamlet_ in Bergen onNovember 5, 1895. 

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

_Henry IV_ in Bjørnson's stage cutting promised at first to establishitself. Its first performance was greeted by a crowded house, andenthusiasm ran high. The press questions the right of the play to thetitle of _Henry IV_, since it is a collection of scenes grouped aboutPrince Hal and Falstaff. But aside from this purely objective criticismthe 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. _BergensTidende_ remarks that it is a common experience that a secondperformance is not so successful as the first. Certainly this was truein the case of _Henry IV_. The life and sparkle were gone, and thesallies of Falstaff awakened no such infectious laughter as they had afew evenings before. [36] There was no applause from the crowded house, and the coolness of the audience reacted upon the players--all inviolent contrast to the first performance. The reviewer in _Aftenbladet_predicts that the production will have no very long life. [37] He wasright. It was given once more, on March 6. Since then the theater-goersof 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 ofDeinhardstein) had been played twice at the old Bergen Theater, July 17and 18, 1861. It was now (Oct. 9, 1892) revived in a new cutting basedon Lembcke's Danish translation. _Bergens Aftenblad_ declares that thecutting was reckless and the staging almost beggarly. The presentationitself hardly rose above the mediocre. [38] _Bergens Tidende_, on theother hand, reports that the performance was an entire success. Thecaste was unexpectedly strong; the costumes and scenery splendid. Theaudience 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 _Romeoand Juliet_. This was performed four times in May, 1897. Like _HenryIV_, it promised to be a great success, but it survived only fourperformances. _Bergens Tidende_[40] gives a careful, well-writtenanalysis of the play and of the presentation. The reviewer gives fullcredit for the beauty of the staging and the excellence of the acting, but criticises the censor sharply for the unskillful cutting, and thestage 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 Bergenis a revival of _A Winter's Tale_ in the season 1902-3. The theater haddone its utmost to give a spendid and worthy setting, and great care wasgiven to the rehearsals. The result was a performance which, for beauty, symmetry, and artistic unity ranks among the very best that have everbeen seen at the theater. The press was unanimous in its cordialrecognition. [42] The play was given no less than nine times duringOctober, 1902. Since then Shakespeare has not been given at _DenNationale 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 toShakespeare in T. Blanc: _Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider, somsiden Kristiania Theaters offentlige Aabning den 30 Januar, 1827, harværet opførte paa samme af dets Personale indtil 15 Juni 1899_. This_Fortegnelse_ is still unpublished. The MS. Is quarto No. 940 in theUniversity Library, Kristiania. 

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

2. Coriolanus. Sørgespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare, bearbeidet for Scenenaf 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 byOehlenschlæger. Music by Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. April 17, 1865, May 27, 1866. 10 times. 

5. Et Vintereventyr. Romantisk Skuespil i 5 Akter. Adapted fromShakespeare'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 Foersomand 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. Translatedby H. Lassen. March 22, 1887, April 22, 1887. 16 times. 

9. Kjøbmanden i Venedig. Skuespil i 5 Akter af Shakespeare. Adapted forthe 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. Translatedby 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 thirteenthperformance (May 23, 1869) given under the title _Naar Enden er god erAlting 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 versiontranslated 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 byP. 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 manvil_. (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 hasbeen compiled from the summary of performances given in the decade1899-1909 contained in _Beretning om Nationaltheatrets Virksomhed iAaret 1909-1910_. Kristiania, 1910. The record of performancessubsequent to 1910, as well as the date of the first performances ofall 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 whenthe 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 gatheredfrom T. Blanc: _Norges første nationale Scene. Bergen 1850-1863. EtBidrag 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 afShakespeares _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 theRoyal 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 fromAct 4 with Ida Falberg Kiachas as guest. Sept. 12, 14, 16, 21, 1883. Guest performance by August Lindberg and his Swedish company. Nov. 15, 1895. 10 times. 

5. Helligtrekongersaften. (_Twelfth Night_) in Lembcke's translation. Oct. 9, 12, 14, 16, 1892; April 23, 1893 in Stavanger. 5 times. 

6. Romeo og Julie. May 12, 16, 19, 27, 1897. 4 times. 

SUMMARY

There have been played in Christiania seventeen plays of Shakespeare'swith a total of 540 performances. In Bergen seven Shakespearean playshave been played with a total of 49 performances. 

 * * * * *

[Errors and Anomalies Noted by Transcriber:

English:

_passim_ Oehlenschläger/Oehlenschlæger _variant spellings in original_

p. 6n. After 1807 the history of Shakespeare in Denmark is more complicated _original has_ Denkmark

p. 9 It is Coriolanus' outburst of wrath against the pretensions of the tribunes (III, 1) _original has_ 111-1

p. 15 even to thought as sophisticated as this _original has_ sophiscated

p. 32 And when we read the scenes in which Lancelot Gobbo figures... _spelling as in original_

p. 36 Titania's instructions to the fairies _original has_ faries

p. 39 though there seems to be little to choose between them _original has_ thought here

p. 43 the Foersom-Lembcke version has become standard _original has_ Forsom-Lembcke

p. 50 notably in the duke's speech _original has_ notaby (Silvius and Pippa) _original has_ anid

p. 51 dialogue between Orlando and Rosalind in II, 2 _so in original_

p. 57 Also he has acquitted himself well _original has_ aquitted

p. 68 nothing to do with the case. _original has_ ... With case. 

p. 69 Molière _original has_ Moliére

p. 80 Cassius' weakness for strong drink _so in original_

p. 81n. The Shakespearean Controversy _original has_ Shakespeareen

p. 82n. And Bierfreund, to declare _original has_ ... Bierfreund to, declare

p. 86 He images Shakespeare _so in original_: imagines?

p. 88 in I, 3-123 where Shylock suddenly stops after "say this" _original has_ I-3-1. 3 (Sic!) _so in original_ Occasionally a syllable is lacking _original has_ Occassionally

p. 89 Vailing her high tops higher than her ribs. (I, 1-28) _original has_ I-1-28

p. 95nn. See p. 94, note 1. _original has_ p. 85, note 1 November 15, 1845 (_twice_) _date and year as in original_

p. 97n. March 22, 1858. _date as in original_

p. 98 This may be added, however: A play which, according to the... _original has_ This may be according added, however: A play which, to the... 

p. 98 As the piece is arranged now, Viola and her brother _original has_ now Viola, and

p. 102, 103 in the magazine _Kringsjaa_. [17] .... The spirit has fled. "[17] _duplicate footnote reference in original_

p. 103n. November 1, 1907. _original has_ 1917

p. 104 no theater could have given a better caste _spelling as in original_

p. 107 commentaries of Taine and Genée _original has_ Genèe

p. 108 The caste was unexpectedly strong _spelling as in original_

Danish and Norwegian:

p. 2 hvad for en Aarsag afholder _original has_ an Aarsag Mig synes der er megen Fornuft _original has_ Meg synes... 

p. 3 Du maae læse Testamentet for os, Cæsars Testament! _original has_ Cæsars Testamment

p. 7 Maaskee I har det hørt, men da de _original has_ Maaskee i har... Slags Smil, der sig fra Lungen ikke skrev _original has_ Smill

p. 8 Endskjøndt de ikke alle kunde see _original has_ ... Ikke all kunne... 

p. 10 Der mer agtværdig er end nogensinde _original has_ ... En nogensinde

p. 11 endnu citeres af Fords _Perkin Warbeck_, II, 2 _original has_ 11, 2

p. 13 Kinn-Ljosken hadde skemt dei Stjernor (_second occurrence_) _original has_ Sternor

p. 17 og aldrig hev eg set ein Engel gaa _original has_ en Engel og gjenta mi ser støtt eg gaa paa Jori _original has_ Jorl

p. 19 Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg, _original has_ trojas

p. 20 de Trolddomsurter der foryngede / den gamle Aeson _original has_ ... De Troldomsurter der foryngede den / gamle Aeson Løb fra Venedig med en lystig Elsker _original has_ er lystig Elsker hvis jeg ei hørte nogen komme--tys! _original has_ komm-/tys at line break

p. 22 Brum saa dette stolte Hierte brister; _original has_ brist er

p. 33 han hadde som ein attaat-snev; _original has_ altaat-snev

p. 33 "Du fenden, " segjer eg, "du raader meg godt. " _original has_ "Du fenden, segjer eg... _missing close quote_

p. 33 "I _Soga um Kaupmannen i Venetia_ _original has_ I, Soga um... 

p. 34 Velkomen, vandrar; hev du blomen der? _original has_ Velkomon This is all in the first selection in _Syn og Segn_, No. 3. _original has_ Syn og segn

p. 36 _Fjerde Alven_: _original has_ Fjorde Til Nattljos hennar voksbein slit i fleng _original has_ slitt

p. 37 so god natt og bysselull (_first occurrence_) _original has_ byselul faa vaar dronning ottefull (_first occurrence_) _original has_ ottefulls faa vaar dronning ottefull (_second occurrence_) _original has_ otteful

p. 41 _Mønsaas_: Her er ei liste... _original has_ Mónsaas

p. 42 langt fleir enn kvinnelippur fram hev bori _original has_ fler

p. 44 _Bernardo_: _original has_ Bernado

p. 94n. "Fortegnelse over alle dramatiske Arbeider... " _original has_ over all

p. 97 saaatsige taber af sin Fylde _not an error_ (saa at sige)

p. 107 Bergens Addressecontoirs Efterretninger _spelling as in original_

p. 110 har været opførte paa samme _original has_ varet opforte

p. 110 bearbeidet for Scenen af H. Lassen _original has_ bearbeidet for / for Scenen _at line break_

p. 111 efter Shakespeares _All's Well That Ends Well_ _original has_ after Shakespeare's... 

p. 111, 112 (twice) Romeo og Julie. _normal Dano-Norse form of name_

p. 112 Deinhardsteins Bearbeidelse af Shakespeares _What You Will_ _original has_ Shakespeare's ]