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

or the new Norwegian "Riksmaal" translation, and Ivar Aasen's early

Landsmaal version holds its own. It keeps the right tone. The dignity of

the original is scarcely marred by a note of the colloquial. Scarcely

marred! For just as many Norwegians are offended by such a phrase as

"Hennar Taus er fagrar' en ho sjølv" in the balcony scene, so many more

will object to the colloquial "Au, d'er Knuten." _Au_ has no place in

dignified verse, and surely it is a most unhappy equivalent for "Ay,

there's the rub." Aasen would have replied that Hamlet's words are

themselves colloquial; but the English conveys no such connotation of

easy speech as does the Landsmaal to a great part of the Norwegian

people. But this is a trifle. The fact remains that Aasen gave a noble

form to Shakespeare's noble verse.

For many years the work of Hauge and Aasen stood alone in Norwegian

literature. The reading public was content to go to Denmark, and the

growing Landsmaal literature was concerned with other matters--first of

all, with the task of establishing itself and the even more complicated

problem of finding a form--orthography, syntax, and inflexions which

should command general acceptance. For the Landsmaal of Ivar Aasen was

frankly based on "the best dialects," and by this he meant, of course,

the dialects that best preserved the forms of the Old Norse. These were

the dialects of the west coast and the mountains. To Aasen the speech of

the towns, of the south-east coast and of the great eastern valleys and

uplands was corrupt and vitiated. It seemed foreign, saturated and

spoiled by Danish. There were those, however, who saw farther. If

Landsmaal was to strike root, it must take into account not merely "the

purest dialects" but the speech of the whole country. It could not, for

example, retain forms like "dat," "dan," etc., which were peculiar to

Søndmør, because they happened to be lineal descendants of Old Norse,

nor should it insist on preterites in _ade_ and participles in _ad_

merely because these forms were found in the sagas. We cannot enter upon

this subject; we can but point out that this movement was born almost

with Landsmaal itself, and that, after Aasen's fragments, the first

Norwegian translation of any part of Shakespeare is a rendering of

Sonnet CXXX in popularized Eastern, as distinguished from Aasen's

literary, aristocratic Western Landsmaal. It is the first translation of

a Shakespearean sonnet on Norwegian soil. The new language was hewing

out new paths.

  Som Soli Augunn' inkje skjin,

  og som Koraller inkje Lipunn' glansar,

  og snjokvit hev ho inkje Halsen sin,

  og Gullhaar inkje Hove hennar kransar,

  Eg baae kvit' og raue Roser ser--,

  paa Kinni hennar deira Lit'kje blandast;

  og meire fin vel Blomsterangen er,

  en den som ut fraa Lipunn' hennar andast.

  Eg høyrt hev hennar Røyst og veit endaa,

  at inkje som ein Song dei læter Ori;

  og aldrig hev eg set ein Engel gaa--

  og gjenta mi ser støtt eg gaa paa Jori.

  Men ho er større Lov og Ære vær

  enn pyntedokkane me laana Glansen.

  Den reine Hugen seg i alting ter,

  og ljost ho smilar under Brurekransen.[18]

    [18. "Ein Sonett etter William Shakespeare." _Fram_--1872.]

Obviously this is not a sonnet at all. Not only does the translator

ignore Shakespeare's rime scheme, but he sets aside the elementary

definition of a sonnet--a poem of fourteen lines. We have here sixteen

lines and the last two add nothing to the original. The poet, through

lack of skill, has simply run on. He could have ended with line 14 and

then, whatever other criticism might have been passed upon his work, we

should have had at least the sonnet form. The additional lines are in

themselves fairly good poetry but they have no place in what purports to

be translation. The translator signs himself simply "r." Whoever he was,

he had poetic feeling and power of expression. No mere poetaster could

have given lines so exquisite in their imagery, so full of music, and

so happy in their phrasing. This fact in itself makes it a poor

translation, for it is rather a paraphrase with a quality and excellence

all its own. Not a line exactly renders the English. The paraphrase is

never so good as the original but, considered by itself, it is good

poetry. The disillusionment comes only with comparison. On the whole,

this second attempt to put Shakespeare into Landsmaal was distinctly

less successful than the first. As poetry it does not measure up to

Aasen; as translation it is periphrastic, arbitrary, not at all

faithful.

The translations which we have thus far considered were mere

fragments--brief soliloquies or a single sonnet, and they were done into

a dialect which was not then and is not now the prevailing literary

language of the country. They were earnest and, in the case of Aasen,

successful attempts to show that Landsmaal was adequate to the most

varied and remote of styles. But many years were to elapse before anyone

attempted the far more difficult task of turning any considerable part

of Shakespeare into "Modern Norwegian."

Norway still relied, with no apparent sense of humiliation, on the

translations of Shakespeare as they came up from Copenhagen. In 1881,

however, Hartvig Lassen (1824-1897) translated _The Merchant of

Venice_.[19] Lassen matriculated as a student in 1842, and from 1850

supported himself as a literateur, writing reviews of books and plays

for _Krydseren_ and _Aftenposten_. In 1872 he was appointed Artistic

Censor at the theater, and in that office translated a multitude of

plays from almost every language of Western Europe. His published

translations of Shakespeare are, however, quite unrelated to his

theatrical work. They were done for school use and published by

_Selskabet for Folkeoplysningens Fremme_ (Society for the Promotion

of Popular Education).

    [19. _Kjøbmanden i Venedig_--Et Skuespil af William

    Shakespeare. Oversat af Hartvig Lassen. Udgivet af Selskabet for

    Folkeoplysningens Fremme som andet Tillægshefte til _Folkevennen_

    for 1881. Kristiania, 1881.]

To _Kjøbmanden i Venedig_ there is no introduction and no notes--merely

a postscript in which the translator declares that he has endeavored

everywhere faithfully to reproduce the peculiar tone of the play and to

preserve the concentration of style which is everywhere characteristic

of Shakespeare. He acknowledges his indebtedness to the Swedish

translation by Hagberg and the German by Schlegel. Inasmuch as this work

was published for wide, general distribution and for reading in the

schools, Lassen cut out the passages which he deemed unsuitable for the

untutored mind. "But," he adds, "with the exception of the last scene of

Act III, which, in its expurgated form, would be too fragmentary (and

which, indeed, does not bear any immediate relation to the action), only

a few isolated passages have been cut. Shakespeare has lost next to

nothing, and a great deal has been gained if I have hereby removed one

ground for the hesitation which most teachers would feel in using the

book in the public schools." In Act III, Scene 5 is omitted entirely,

and obvious passages in other parts of the play.

It has frequently been said that Lassen did little more than

"norvagicize" Lembcke's Danish renderings. And certainly even the most

cursory reading will show that he had Lembcke at hand. But comparison

will also show that variations from Lembcke are numerous and

considerable. Lassen was a man of letters, a critic, and a good student

of foreign languages, but he was no poet, and his _Merchant of Venice_

is, generally speaking, much inferior to Lembcke's. Compare, for

example, the exquisite opening of the fifth act:

  LASSEN

  _Lor_:

  Klart skinner Maanen, i en Nat som denne,

  da Vinden gled med Lys igjennem Løvet,

  og alt var tyst: i slig en Nat forvist

  Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg,

  til Grækerlejren, til sin Cressida

  udsukkende sin Sjæl.

      LEMBCKE

      Klart skinner Maanen, i en Nat som denne,

      mens Luftningen saa sagte kyssed Træet

      at knapt det sused, i en saadan Nat

      steg Troilus vist up paa Trojas Mur

      og sukked ud sin Sjæl mod Grækerlejren

      der gjemte Cressida.

  _Jes_:

         I slig en Nat

  sig Thisbe listed ængstelig, over Duggen

  saa Løvens Skygge før hun saa den selv,

  og løb forskrækket bort.

             En saadan Nat

      gik Thisbe bange trippende paa Duggen

      og øjned Løvens Skygge før den selv

      og løb forfærdet bort.

  _Lor_:

        I slig en Nat

  stod Dido med en Vidjevaand i Haanden

  paa vilden strand, og vinked til Kartago

  sin elsker hjem igjen.

            En saadan Nat

      stod Dido med en Vidjekvist i Haanden

      paa vilden Strand og vinkede sin Elsker

      tilbage til Carthagos Kyst.

  _Jes_:

         I slig en Nat

  Medea plukked Galder-Urt for Aeson

  hans Ungdom at forny.

              Det var

      en saadan Nat, da sankede Medea

      de Trolddomsurter der foryngede

      den gamle Aeson.

  _Lor_:

          I slig en Nat

  stjal Jessica sig fra den rige Jøde,

  Løb fra Venedig med en lystig Elsker

  til Belmont uden Stands.

              Og en saadan Nat

      sneg Jessica sig fra den rige Jøde

      og løb med en Landstryger fra Venedig

      herhid til Belmont.

  _Jes_:

          I slig en Nat

  svor ung Lorenzo at han elsked hende,

  stjal hendes Sjæl med mange Troskabsløfter

  og ikke et var sandt.

              Og en saadan Nat

      svor ung Lorenzo hende Kjærlighed

      og stjal med Troskabseder hendes Hjerte

      og aldrig en var sand.

  _Lor_:

           I slig en Nat

  skjøn Jessica, den lille Klaffertunge,

  løi paa sin Elsker, og han tilgav hende.

               I slig en Nat

      bagtalte just skjøn Jessica sin Elsker

      ret som en lille Trold, og han tilgav det.

  _Jes_:

  Jeg gad fortalt dig mer om slig en Nat,

  hvis jeg ei hørte nogen komme--tys!

      Jeg skulde sagtens "overnatte" dig

      hvis ingen kom; men tys, jeg hører der

      Trin af en Mand.

Lembcke's version is faithful to the point of slavishness. Compare,

for example, "Jeg skulde sagtens overnatte dig" with "I would outnight

you." Lassen, though never grossly inaccurate, allows himself greater

liberties. Compare lines 2-6 with the original and with Lembcke. In

every case the Danish version is more faithful than the Norwegian. And

more mellifluous. Why Lassen should choose such clumsy and banal lines

as:

          I slig en Nat

  Trojas Murtinder Troilus besteg

when he could have used Lembcke's, is inexplicable except on the

hypothesis that he was eager to prove his own originality. The remainder

of Lorenzo's first speech is scarcely better. It is neither good

translation nor decent verse.

In 1882 came Lassen's _Julius Caesar_,[20] likewise published as a

supplement to _Folkevennen_ for use in the schools. A short postscript

tells us that the principles which governed in the translation of the

earlier play have governed here also. Lassen specifically declares that

he used Foersom's translation (Copenhagen, 1811) as the basis for the

translation of Antony's oration. A comparison shows that in this scene

Lassen follows Foersom closely--he keeps archaisms which Lembcke

amended. One or two instances:

  _Foersom_:

  Seer, her foer Casii Dolk igjennem den;

  seer, hvilken Rift den nidske Casca gjorde;

  her rammed' den høitelskte Bruti Dolk, etc.

    _Lembcke_:

    Se, her foer Cassius' Dolk igjennem den;

    se hvilken Rift den onde Casca gjorde.

    Her stødte Brutus den høitelskede, etc.

      _Lassen_:

      Se! her foer Casii Dolk igjennem den;

      se hvilken Rift den onde