An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 162 pages of information about An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway.

An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 162 pages of information about An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway.

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 Lovaas as Falstaff, the reception given it by the press was about what it had been a quarter of a century before. Aftenposten’s[16] comment is characteristic:  “The play is turned upside down.  The comic sub-plot with Falstaff as central figure is brought forward to the exclusion of all the rest.  More than this, what is retained is shamelessly altered.”  Much more scathing is a short review by Christian Elster in the magazine Kringsjaa.[17] The play, he declares, has obviously been given to help out the box office by speculating in the popularity of Falstaff.  “There is no unity, no coherence, no consistency in the delineation of characters, and even from the comic scenes the spirit has fled."[17]

    [16. Aftenposten.  February 25, 1910.]

    [17. Kringsjaa XV, III (1910), p. 173.]

To all this it may be replied that the public was right when it accepted Falstaff for what he was regardless of the violence done to the original.  The Norwegian public cared little about the wars, little even about the king and the prince; but people will tell one today of those glorious evenings when they sat in the theater and revelled in Johannes Brun as the big, elephantine knight.

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

The press was not lavish in its praise. Dagbladet[18] remarks that though the performance was not what it ought to have been, the audience followed it from first to last with undivided attention. Aftenbladet[19] has a long and interesting review.  Most of it is given over to a criticism of Isaachson’s Hamlet.  First of all, says the reviewer, Isaachson labors under the delusion that every line is cryptic, embodying a secret.  This leads him to forget the volume of the part and to invent all sorts of fanciful interpretations for details.  Thus he loses the unity of the character.  Things are hurried through to a conclusion and the fine transitions are lost.  For example, “Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt” is started well, but the speech at once gains in clearness and decision until one wonders at the close why such a Hamlet does not act at once with promptness and vigor.  There are, to be sure, occasional excellences, but they do not conceal the fact that, as a whole, Isaachson does not understand Hamlet.

    [18.  March 5, 1870.]

    [19.  March 8, 1870.]

Since its first performance Hamlet has been given often in Norway—­twenty-eight times at the old Christiania Theater, and (from October 31, 1907) seventeen times at the new National Theater.  Its revival in 1907, after an intermission of twenty-four years, was a complete success, although Morgenbladet[20] complained that the performance lacked light and inspiration.  The house was full and the audience appreciative.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.