An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway by Martin Brown Ruud (best novels of all time .TXT) 📕

and critically read, but no one turned his attention to criticism or

scholarly investigation. Indeed, I have searched Norwegian periodical

literature in vain for any allusion to Shakespeare between 1782 and

title-page with a motto from Shakespeare. _Christiania Aftenbladet_

for July 19, 1828, reprints Carl Bagger's clever poem on Shakespeare's

reputed love-affair with "Fanny," an adventure which got him into

trouble and gave rise to the bon-mot, "William the Conqueror ruled

before Richard III." The poem was reprinted from _Kjöbenhavns Flyvende

Post_ (1828); we shall speak of it again in connection with our study of

Shakespeare in Denmark.

After this there is another break. Not even a reference to Shakespeare

occurs in the hundreds of periodicals I have examined, until the long

silence is broken by a short, fourth-hand article on Shakespeare's life

in _Skilling Magazinet_ for Sept. 23, 1843. The same magazine gives a

similar popular account in its issue for Sept. 4, 1844. Indeed, several

such articles and sketches may be found in popular periodicals of the

years following.

In 1855, however, appeared Niels Hauge's afore mentioned translation of

_Macbeth_, and shortly afterward Professor Monrad, who, according to

Hauge 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 good

sense, and when he was dealing with acknowledged masterpieces he could

be 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 it

is Shakespeare, for in him the whole poetic, romantic ideal of

Protestantism finds expression. He is the Luther of poetry, though

between Luther and Shakespeare there is all the difference between

religious zeal and the quiet contemplation of the beautiful. Both belong

to the whole world, Shakespeare because his characters, humor, art,

reflections, are universal in their validity and their appeal. Wherever

he is read he becomes the spokesman against narrowness, dogmatism, and

intolerance. To translate Shakespeare, he points out, is difficult

because of the archaic language, the obscure allusions, and the intense

originality of the expression. Shakespeare, indeed, is as much the

creator as the user of his mother-tongue. The one translation of

_Macbeth_ in existence, Foersom's, is good, but it is only in part

Shakespeare, and the times require something more adequate and

"something more distinctly our own." Monrad feels that this should

not be altogether impossible "when we consider the intimate relations

between England and Norway, and the further coincidence that the

Norwegian 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 rendering

of the text. Monrad calls attention to the fact--in which he was, of

course, mistaken--that this is the first translation of the original

_Macbeth_ into Dano-Norwegian or into Danish. It is a work of undoubted

merit, though here and there a little stiff and hazy, "but Shakespeare

is not easily clarified." The humorous passages, thinks the reviewer,

are a severe test of a translator's powers and this test Hauge has met

with conspicuous success. Also he has aquitted himself well in the

difficult matter of putting Shakespeare's meter into Norwegian.

The last two pages are taken up with a detailed study of single

passages. The only serious error Monrad has noticed is the following: In

Act II, 3 one of the murderers calls out "A light! A light!" Regarding

this passage Monrad remarks: "It is certainly a mistake to have the

second murderer call out, "Bring a light here!" (Lys hid!) The murderer

does not demand a light, but he detects a shimmer from Banquo's

approaching torch." The rest of the section is devoted to mere trifles.

This is the sort of review which we should expect from an intelligent

and well-informed man. Monrad was not a scholar, nor even a man of

delicate and penetrating reactions. But he had sound sense and perfect

self-assurance, which made him something of a Samuel Johnson in the

little provincial Kristiania of his day. At any rate, he was the only

one who took the trouble to review Hauge's translation, and even he was

doubtless led to the task because of his personal interest in the

translator. If we may judge from the stir it made in periodical

literature, _Macbeth_ fell dead from the press.

The tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth (1864) aroused a certain

interest in Norway, and little notes and articles are not infrequent

in the newspapers and periodicals about that time. _Illustreret

Nyhedsblad_[4] has a short, popular article on Stratford-on-Avon. It

contains the usual Shakespeare apocrypha--the Sir Thomas Lucy story, the

story of the apple tree under which Shakespeare and his companions slept

off the effects of too much Bedford ale--and all the rest of it. It

makes no pretense of being anything but an interesting hodge-podge

for popular consumption. The next year, 1864, the same periodical

published[5] on the traditional day of Shakespeare's birth a rather long

and suggestive article on the English drama before Shakespeare. If this

article had been original, it might have had a certain significance,

but, unfortunately, it is taken from the German of Bodenstedt. The

only significant thing about it is the line following the title: "Til

Erindring paa Trehundredsaarsdagen efter Shakespeares Födsel, d. 23

April, 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 then

highly esteemed poet, Andreas Munch, and published in his own magazine,

_For Hjemmet_,[6] in April, 1864. Munch rarely rises above mediocrity

and 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 his

calendar that Shakespeare's birthday was approaching, and ground out

this poem to fill space in _Hjemmet_. But his intentions are good. No

one can quarrel with the content. And when all is said, he probably

expressed, 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 in

dealing with Shakespeare, found it necessary to draw upon the prevailing

"Skandinavisme" and label Shakespeare "Nordisk"; second, the accidental

truth of the closing couplet. If we could interpret this as referring

to Wergeland, who _did_ break the chains of foreign bondage, and gave

Norway a place in the literature of the world, we should have the first

reference to an interesting fact in Norwegian literary history. But

doubtless we have no right to credit Munch with any such acumen. The

couplet was put into the poem merely because it sounded well.

More important than this effusion of bad verse from the poet of fashion

was a little article which Paul Botten Hansen wrote in _Illustreret

Nyhedsblad_[7] in 1865. Botten Hansen had a fine literary appreciation

and a profound knowledge of books. The effort, therefore, to give

Denmark and Norway a complete translation of Shakespeare was sure to

meet with his sympathy. In 1861 Lembcke began his revision of Foersom's

work, and, although it must have come up to Norway from Copenhagen

almost immediately, no allusion to it is found in periodical literature

till Botten Hansen wrote his review of Part (Hefte) XI. This part

contains _King John_. The reviewer, however, does not enter upon any

criticism of the play or of the translation; he gives merely a short

account of Shakespearean translation in the two countries before

Lembcke. Apparently the notice is written without special research, for

it is far from complete, but it gives, at any rate, the best outline of

the subject which we have had up to the present. Save for a few lines of

praise for Foersom and a word for Hauge, "who gave the first accurate

translation of this masterpiece (_Macbeth_) of which Dano-Norwegian

literature can boast before 1861," the review is simply a loosely

connected string of titles. Toward the close Botten Hansen writes:

"When to these plays (the standard Danish translations) we add (certain

others, which are given), we believe that we have enumerated all the

Danish translations of Shakespeare." This investigation has shown,

however, that there are serious gaps in the list. Botten Hansen calls

Foersom's the first Danish translation of Shakespeare. It is curious

that he should have overlooked Johannes Boye's _Hamlet_ of 1777, or

Rosenfeldt's translation of six plays (1790-1792). It is less strange

that he did not know Sander and Rahbek's translation of the unaltered

_Macbeth_ of 1801--which preceded Hauge by half a century--for this was

buried in Sander's lectures. Nor is he greatly to be blamed for his

ignorance of the numerous Shakespearean fragments which the student may

find tucked away in Danish reviews, from M.C. Brun's _Svada_ (1796) and

notes to his translation he would have found a clue of interest to him

as a Norwegian. For Foersom specifically refers to a translation of a

scene from _Julius Caesar_ in _Trondhjems Allehaande_.

    [7. Vol. XIV, p. 96.]

Lembcke's revision, which is the occasion of the article, is greeted

with approval and encouragement. There is no need for Norwegians to go

about preparing an independent translation. Quite the contrary. The

article closes: "Whether or not Lembcke has the strength and endurance

for such a gigantic task, time alone will tell. At any rate, it is the

duty of the public to encourage the undertaking and make possible its

completion."

We come now to the most interesting chapter in the history of

Shakespeare in Norway. This is a performance of _A Midsummer Night's

Dream_ under the direction of Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson at Christiania

Theater, April 17, 1865. The story belongs rather to the history of

Shakespeare on the Norwegian stage, but the documents of the affair are

contributions to Shakespearean criticism and must, accordingly, be

discussed here. Bjørnson's fiery reply to his critics of April 28

is especially valuable as an analysis of his own attitude toward

Shakespeare.

Bjørnson became director of Christiania Theater in January, 1865, and

the first important performance under his direction was _A Midsummer

Night's Dream_ (Skjärsommernatsdrömmen) in Oehlenschläger's translation,

with music by Mendelssohn.[8] Bjørnson had strained the resources

of 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 is

worth 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 it

is needless to give an account of it. "But what is the meaning," he

exclaims, "of this bold and poetic mixture of clowns and fairies, of

mythology, and superstition, of high and low, of the earthly and

the supernatural? And the scene is neither Athens nor Greece, but

Shakespeare's own England; it is his own time and his own spirit." We

are transported to an English grove in early summer with birds, flowers,

soft breezes, and cooling shadows. What wonder that a man coming in from

the hunt or the society of men should fill such a place with fairies and

lovely ladies and people it with sighs, and passions, and stories? And

all this has been brought together by a poet's fine feeling. This it is

which separates the play from so many others of its kind now so common

and often so well presented. Here a master's spirit pervades all, unites

all in lovely romance. Other plays are mere displays of scenery and

costume by comparison. Even the sport of the clowns throws the whole

into stronger relief.

Now, how should such a play be given? Obviously, by actors of the first

order and with costumes and scenery the most splendid. This goes without

saying, for the play is intended quite as much to be seen as to be

heard. To do it justice, the performance must bring out some of the

splendor and the fantasy with which it was conceived. As we read

_A