Martin Brown Ruud - An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway

M >> Martin Brown Ruud >> An Essay Toward a History of Shakespeare in Norway

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

Wildenvey then states that in his cuttings he has followed the edition
of the British Empire Shakespeare Society. But the performance in
Kristiania has demanded more, "and my adaptation could not be so
wonderfully ideal. _As You Like It_ is, probably more than any other of
Shakespeare's plays, a jest and only in part a play. Through the title
he has given his work, he has given me the right to make my own
arrangement 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 and
scenes widely separated, have often been brought together. In this way
unnecessary scene-shifts have been avoided. But the action has been kept
intact and only two characters have been eliminated: Jacques de Bois,
whose speeches have been given to Le Beau, and Hymen, whose role has
been given to Celia. Two or three speeches have been shifted. But to a
reader unacquainted with Shakespeare all this would pass unnoticed, as
would 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. Note
in 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 violence
to the fable nor to the characters. His shifts and changes are sensible
enough. 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 break
up long speeches into dialogue. To make this possible he has to put
speeches of his own invention into the mouths of other characters. The
opening of the play gives an excellent illustration. In Wildenvey we
read:

_Orlando_: (kommer ind med tjeneren Adam)
Nu kan du likesaa godt faa vite hvordan alle mine bedroveligheter
begynder, Adam! Min salig far testamenterte mig nogen fattige tusen
kroner og paala uttrykkelig min bror at gi mig en standsmaessig
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 son!
Men jeg tjener Eders bror, og er alene tjener...

_Orl_:
Her hos ham har jeg ikke kunnet laegge mig til noget andet end vaekst,
og det kan jeg vaere ham likesaa forbunden for som hans husdyr hist
og her. Formodentlig er det det jeg har arvet av min fars aand som
gjor opror mot denne behandling. Jeg har ingen utsigt til nogen
forandring til det bedre, men hvad der end haender, vil jeg ikke
taale det laenger.

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

More serious than this is Wildenvey's trick of adding whole series of
speeches. We have noted in our survey of the "bearbeidelse" that the
second act opens with a dialogue between the Duke and Amiens which is a
gratuitous 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)
Vaer hilset, dag, som laegges til de andre
av mine mange motgangs dage.
Vaer hilset nu, naar solen atter stempler
sit gyldne segl paa jordens stolte pande.
Vaer hilset, morgen, med din nye rigdom,
med dug og duft fra alle traer og blomster.
Glade, blanke fugleoines 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 traer og dyr og andre forekomster
betragter os som Adamer, kanhaende.

_Hertugen_:
Din spog er vel en saadan sanger vaerd.
Du mener med at her er alting herlig,
sommer, vinter, vaar og hosttid veksler.
Solen skinner, vind og veiret driver.
Vinterblaasten blaaser op og biter
og fortaeller 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 glaeder:
hver graasten synes god og kirkeklok,
hvert redetrae er jo en sangers slot,
og alt er skjont, og alt er saare godt.

_Amiens_:
Du er en godt benaadet oversaetter,
naar du kan tolke skjaebnens harske talesaet
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 ode og forlate stad...

_Jacques_:
Det er synd at sondre 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 reveal
certain verbal resemblances, notably in the duke's speech:

Din spok er vel en saadan sanger vaerd, etc.

But, even allowing for that, it is a rephrasing rather than a
translation. The stage action, too, is changed. Notice that Jacques
appears in the scene, and that in the episode immediately following, the
second part of the first lord's speech is put into Jacques' mouth. In
other 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 between
Jacques and the two lords. In Wildenvey this is changed to a rhymed
dialogue in iambic tetrameters between Jacques and Amiens. In like
manner, the blank verse dialogue between Silvius and Phebe (Silvius and
Pippa) is in Norwegian rendered, or rather paraphrased, in iambic verse
rhyming regularly abab.

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

Wildenvey's version, therefore, can only be characterized as needlessly
free. For the text as such he has absolutely no regard. But for the fact
that he has kept the fable and, for the most part, the characters,
intact, we should characterize it as a belated specimen of Sille Beyer's
notorious Shakespeare "bearbeidelser" in Denmark. But Wildenvey does not
take 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 not
translate Shakespeare but it makes him live. The delighted audience
which sat night after night in Christiania and Copenhagen and drank in
the loveliness of Wildenvey's verse and Halvorsen's music cared little
whether the lines that came over the footlights were philologically an
accurate translation or not. They were enchanted by Norwegian verse and
moved to unfeigned delight by the cleverness of the prose. If Wildenvey
did not succeed in translating _As You Like It_--one cannot believe that
he ever intended to,--he did succeed in reproducing something of "its
imperishable woodland spirit, its fresh breath of out-of-doors."

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

_Touchstone_:
Har du vaeret ved hoffet, hyrde?

_Korin_:
Visselig ikke.

_Touch_:
Da er du evig fordomt.

_Korin_:
Det haaber jeg da ikke.

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

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

_Touch_:
Hvis du ikke har vaeret ved hoffet, saa har du aldrig set gode seder,
og hvis du ikke har set gode seder, saa maa dine seder vaere slette,
og slette seder er synd, og syndens sold er dod og fordommelse. Du
er i en betaenkelig 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 marvelous
cleverness:

Fra ost til vest er ei at finde
en aedelsten 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.
Vinterklaer er tit for tynde,
det er ogsaa Rosalinde.
Notten sot har surhamshinde,
slik en nott 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 a
life and movement which, perhaps, interpret the original more fully than
any translation could interpret it. What freshness and sparkle in "Under
the Greenwood Tree!" I give only the first stanza:

Under de gronne traer
hvem vil mig mote der?
Hvem vil en tone slaa
frit mot det blide blaa?
Kom hit og herhen, hit og herhen,
kom, kjaere ven,
her skal du se,
traer skal du se,
sommer og herlig veir skal du se.

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

Blaas, blaas du barske vind,
trolose 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 lovet.
Alt venskap er vammelt, al elskov er tovet,
men her under lovet
er ingen bedrovet.

_Livet i Skogen_, then, must not be read as a translation of _As You
Like It_, but is immensely worth reading for its own sake. Schiller
recast and rewrote _Macbeth_ in somewhat the same way, but Schiller's
_Macbeth_, condemned by its absurd porter-scene, is today nothing
more than a literary curiosity. I firmly believe that Wildenvey's
"bearbeidelse" deserves a better fate. It gave new life to the
Shakespeare 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 are
neither numerous nor important. There is nothing to be compared with the
German of Tieck and Schlegel the Danish of Foersom, or the Swedish of
Hagberg.

But the reason is obvious. Down to 1814 Norway was politically and
culturally a dependency of Denmark. Copenhagen was the seat of
government, of literature, and of polite life. To Copenhagen cultivated
Norwegians looked for their models and their ideals. When Shakespeare
made his first appearance in the Danish literary world--Denmark and
Norway--it was, of course, in pure Danish garb. Boye, Rosenfeldt,
and Foersom gave to their contemporaries more or less satisfactory
translations of Shakespeare, and Norwegians were content to accept the
Danish versions. In one or two instances they made experiments of their
own. An unknown man of letters translated a scene from _Julius Caesar_
in 1782, and in 1818 appeared a translation of _Coriolanus_. But there
is little that is typically Norwegian about either of these--a word or a
phrase here and there. For the rest, they are written in pure Danish,
and but for the title-page, no one could tell whether they were
published 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 literary
interests of another character absorbed the attention of the cultivated
world. Hauge's translation of _Macbeth_ is not significant, nor are
those of Lassen thirty years later. A scholar could, of course, easily
show that they are Norwegian, but that is all. They never succeeded in
displacing Foersom-Lembcke.

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

Herman Wildenvey stands alone. His work is neither a translation nor
a mere paraphrase; it is a reformulating of Shakespeare into a new work
of art. He has accomplished a feat worth performing, but it cannot be
called translating Shakespeare. It must be judged as an independent
work.

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 question
impossible to answer. A pure Landsmaal translation cannot satisfy, and
many Norwegians refuse to recognize the Riksmaal as Norwegian at all. In
the far, impenetrable future the language question may settle itself,
and when that happy day comes, but not before, we may look with some
confidence for a "standard" Shakespeare in a literary garb which all
Norwegians will recognize as their own.

CHAPTER II

Shakespeare Criticism In Norway

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

Our first bit of Shakespearean criticism is the little introductory note
which the anonymous translator of the scenes from _Julius Caesar_ put at
the 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 to
render not merely Antony's eloquent appeal but also the interspersed
ejaculations of the crowd, "since these, too, are evidence of
Shakespeare's understanding of the human soul and of his realization
of the manner in which the oration gradually brought about the result
toward which Antony aimed."

This is not profound criticism, to be sure, but it shows clearly that
this litterateur in far-away Trondhjem had a definite, if not a very new
and original, estimate of Shakespeare. It is significant that there is
no hint of apology, of that tone which is so common in Shakespearean
criticism of the day--Shakespeare was a great poet, but his genius was
wild and untamed. This unknown Norwegian, apparently, had been struck
only by the verity of the scene, and in that simplicity showed himself a
better 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 him
casually, as we have seen, but Rahbek does not mention him.[1] Many
years later Paul Botten Hansen, one of the best equipped bookmen that
Norway has produced, wrote a brief review of Lembcke's translation. In
the course of this he enumerates the Dano-Norwegian translations known
to 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 find
evidence of Shakespearean studies in Norway. The isolated translation
of _Coriolanus_ from 1818 shows us that Shakespeare was read, carefully
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
1827. Finally, in the latter year _Den Norske Husven_ adorns its
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 _Kjoebenhavns 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 Foedsel, 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:

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11