Leseprobe_Holm_Holberg Plays Volume I
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
LUDVIG HOLBERG<br />
PLAYS<br />
<strong>Volume</strong> I<br />
Just Justesen’s Ref lections on Theatre<br />
Jeppe of The Hill<br />
Ulysses von Ithacia
LUDVIG HOLBERG<br />
PLAYS<br />
VOLUME I
LUDVIG HOLBERG<br />
PLAYS<br />
VOLUME I<br />
Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre<br />
Jeppe of The Hill<br />
Ulysses von Ithacia<br />
Edited and translated from the Danish by<br />
Bent <strong>Holm</strong> and Gaye Kynoch
The translation project is grateful for funding from:<br />
Danish Arts Foundation<br />
Ingeniør Kaptajn Aage Nielsens Familiefond<br />
Konsul George Jorck og Hustru Emma Jorck’s Fond<br />
Soransk Samfund<br />
With thanks to:<br />
Actors from Why Not Theatre Company, Denmark:<br />
Sue Hansen-Styles, Andrew Jeffers, Kevin Kiernan-Molloy, Sira Stampe<br />
Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab<br />
(Society for Danish Language and Literature)<br />
Hans-Peter Kellner<br />
Frontcover image, details from: Benoit Le Coffre, A Masquerade, Frederiksberg Palace, 1704<br />
Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong>: <strong>Plays</strong>, <strong>Volume</strong> I, Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre, Jeppe of The Hill,<br />
Ulysses von Ithacia. Edited and translated from the Danish by Bent <strong>Holm</strong> and Gaye Kynoch<br />
Wien: HOLLITZER VERLAG, 2020<br />
Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre (Just Justesens betænkning over komedier), Jeppe of The Hill<br />
(Jeppe på Bjerget), and Ulysses von Ithacia have been translated from the Danish versions published<br />
by Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong>s Skrifter (The Writings of Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong>) at:<br />
Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong>s Skrifter http://holbergsskrifter.dk<br />
Layout: Nikola Stevanović<br />
Printed and bound in the EU<br />
All rights reserved.<br />
Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of<br />
this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by<br />
any means, digital, electronic or mechanical, or by photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or<br />
conveyed via the Internet or a Web site without prior written permission of the publisher.<br />
Responsibility for the content and for questions of copyright lies with the author.<br />
www.hollitzer.at<br />
ISBN 978-3-99012-595-3
CONTENTS<br />
7<br />
PREFACE<br />
11<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre<br />
(Just Justesens betænkning over komedier)<br />
17<br />
Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre<br />
23<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Jeppe of The Hill<br />
(Jeppe på Bjerget)<br />
25<br />
Jeppe of The Hill<br />
81<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Ulysses von Ithacia<br />
83<br />
Ulysses von Ithacia<br />
5
6
PREFACE<br />
Four factors led to the launch and timing of this project.<br />
In 2018 Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong>, a Danish Playwright on the European Stage (written by<br />
Bent <strong>Holm</strong>, translated by Gaye Kynoch) was published by Hollitzer Verlag. The<br />
book provides an overall introduction to the writer and thinker Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong><br />
(1684–1754), his work for the theatre, his literary output, his influence, the<br />
historical contexts – culminating in comprehensive analyses of six of his plays.<br />
The next step was then obvious: to give the international audience direct access<br />
to the world of <strong>Holberg</strong> via new translations of these six plays – a process that is<br />
now underway.<br />
Also in 2018, the online edition of <strong>Holberg</strong>’s collected writings – his output<br />
was, by the way, enormous – was completed. The project has been a Danish-<br />
Norwegian collaboration between Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab (Society<br />
for Danish Language and Literature) and the University of Bergen. This critical<br />
edition of the texts then formed the basis for our work in presenting <strong>Holberg</strong>’s<br />
stage world to an international audience.<br />
Timing again comes into play: 2022 marks the 300th anniversary of the<br />
founding of a professional Danish-language stage, upon which <strong>Holberg</strong> was<br />
initially the dominant dramatist and thus a pioneer of Nordic drama. No Ibsen<br />
without <strong>Holberg</strong>, it is tempting to say (and Ibsen did indeed declare <strong>Holberg</strong> to be<br />
his favourite writer). When Strindberg planned his Intima Teatern in Stockholm,<br />
he put <strong>Holberg</strong>’s Jeppe på Bjerget (Jeppe of The Hill) on the repertoire; to his<br />
mind, it had the character of a ‘dreamplay’ in line with, for example, Lope de<br />
Vega’s La vida es sueño (Life Is a Dream). The new translations will be issued in<br />
three consecutive volumes, publication of which is timed so that the current sixplay<br />
project will be rounded off in the anniversary year. In this first volume, we<br />
present two plays that, although very different from one another, both deal with<br />
themes of power and illusion. We are also including a new translation of <strong>Holberg</strong>’s<br />
preface to the first published volume of his plays (1723), which took the form of<br />
his reflections on the art of theatre.<br />
Finally, the principle reason: the value of the works. In his day, <strong>Holberg</strong> was<br />
part of the European literary canon. In terms of the quality of his writing, his<br />
understanding of stage and auditorium, his choice and exploration of themes, he<br />
should take up this place again.<br />
The text as meaning, music and choreography<br />
The translation project is thus an extension of the <strong>Holberg</strong> monograph and the<br />
online edition of his writings, and it focusses on Danish theatre in an international<br />
7
perspective. The six scripts have been brought to English-language life on two<br />
levels, in three dimensions and by four hands.<br />
The translations are faithful to the original Danish in the sense that they are<br />
not ‘creative’ versions or modern updates; even the orthography of the source text<br />
has been respected as inherent musical-rhythmic punctuation. To aid reading of<br />
the texts, we have made a few additions to the cast listings, in square brackets,<br />
and we have added a few footnotes: brief explanations of terms, references and<br />
contexts with which <strong>Holberg</strong>’s contemporary audience would probably have been<br />
familiar, but we might not be today.<br />
When translating, especially theatre plays, it is also necessary to be constantly<br />
aware of what you are translating, besides the meaning of the words. A text that has<br />
been written for the stage comes to life on stage and (by this means) in the imagination<br />
of the audience. Thus, a specific semantic and a more abstract emotional level of<br />
language are at work in the text – and both have to be ‘translated’.<br />
Stage life is partly generated through musical registers in the language – the<br />
rhythms and tones – expressing the characters’ emotional fluctuations and shifts,<br />
which are transmitted to the actors’ bodies and breathing, and resonate in the<br />
audience’s ‘participation’. Stage characters must be tuned like instruments playing<br />
as a dynamic ensemble, tension in the complexity and diversity of contrasts<br />
following the contrapuntal lines – the element of the language implying symphonic<br />
and choreographic secrets. It is a matter of vowels and consonants running through<br />
the text and appealing to more or less intuitive or rational states of consciousness<br />
– flexible-open versus reflective-detached approaches to circumstances. Assonance<br />
and alliteration can make for flow or punctuation, which is combined with largo<br />
or staccato sentence constructions like a musical score, encompassing a character’s<br />
breathing and thereby state of mind.<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong> loved listening to music and playing music. In his young days, he<br />
spent two years studying in Oxford – with barely a penny to his name – and for a<br />
while supported himself by teaching the flute.<br />
Stage life is also created by means of imagery – figurative language, associations<br />
– in the text. Here, too, the translation must fine-tune the stethoscope. The<br />
performed language has to work without footnotes. Jeppe’s protestation that he<br />
is “uskyldig som et barn i moders liv” (innocent as a child in its mother’s womb)<br />
implicates a whole series of images and associations, a root network in the text,<br />
entailing birth-death-paradise and ultimately the protagonist’s thirst, his relentless<br />
craving to be something in someone’s eyes. He satisfies that longing via drunken escape<br />
into a dreamworld, away from the demands and humiliations of his everyday life,<br />
and thus towards a snug state of innocence “as a child in its mother’s womb”. In<br />
terms of semantics, the phrase could be ‘translated’ to any accentuation of Jeppe’s<br />
8
innocence. But the metaphor is corporeal, and therefore resonates in the body and<br />
imagination of the audience.<br />
Here, too – in connection with the imagery of the text – musicality enters the<br />
picture: which word falls on which beat is vital to the audience experience of a play.<br />
Where is the main stress placed in the phrasing of the lines spoken? In the original<br />
Danish, Jeppe’s insistence on his innocence is evident in the rhythm of the line:<br />
“Jeg er så uskyldig som et barn i moders liv.” All these nuances cannot possibly be<br />
transferred one-to-one from the one language to the other. But the translator of<br />
drama must have a both reflective and intuitive understanding of the work, which is<br />
thus not only about reproducing the semantic meaning of the original text, but also<br />
in the widest sense about transferring its musicality to its new language.<br />
Policy and objective when approaching these translations have thus been loyalty<br />
to the original text combined with consideration of a particular scenic language –<br />
the text as one component in an overall artistic totality in three dimensions, which<br />
must enter into direct dialogue with the audience. The translation has therefore been<br />
back and forth between us numerous times as we weighed out how closely a ‘new’<br />
linguistic outfit could be tailored vis-à-vis the original model, and sought inventive<br />
solutions to situations in which meaning was not the only consideration – where,<br />
in a nutshell, it was only possible/necessary to be loyal by being uninhibited. In<br />
other words, the concept of loyalty to the original text has also been a matter of the<br />
performative registers. By thus being forced to delve under the layer of somewhat<br />
antiquated Danish – and in so doing also work through and go beyond the intimacy<br />
with the original text as accrued by our Danish half – we have gained new insight<br />
into the psychological sensitivity expressed via orchestration, the construing of<br />
which has been a key ambition in the translation. In this process, we received expert<br />
input from four English-language actors, who in November 2019 with delight and<br />
energy undertook readings of the two plays in this volume: two translated texts<br />
with which they were utterly unfamiliar and could therefore approach as they<br />
would any ‘new’ material, on purely professional stage terms.<br />
Language, history, dramaturgy<br />
The project is the result of two pairs of hands. Circumstances of language and<br />
history – with regard to introductions, notes and choices in the translation –<br />
have been the subject of ongoing dialogue, and thus the boundaries between who<br />
contributed exactly what are fluid. All aspects of the language, the history and<br />
the stage have been put to the test in constructive practices.<br />
Our endeavour has been to bestow upon the Danish originals an English that<br />
is neither nostalgically ‘old-fashioned’ nor demonstratively ‘modern’ – an attempt<br />
9
to respect the originals in the triangulation between semantic, factual and stage<br />
considerations in such a way that the language is only ‘odd’ when it is meant to be<br />
so, when the characters find themselves in circumstances where words, sentences,<br />
meanings break down.<br />
In our understandings of language, history and dramaturgy, we come from<br />
two different European backgrounds. The differences, similarities, discords and<br />
harmonies inherent in these traditions have been the backdrop to the translation<br />
process, and have thus directed the dynamics and led to the result.<br />
Copenhagen, Denmark, 24.3.2020<br />
Bent <strong>Holm</strong> and Gaye Kynoch<br />
10
INTRODUCTION<br />
Just JUSTESEN’S Reflections on Theatre<br />
(Just Justesens betænkning over KOMEDIER)<br />
1723<br />
Writer on the move<br />
Ludvig <strong>Holberg</strong> was born in 1684 in Bergen, Norway, a citizen of the dual<br />
monarchy of Denmark-Norway. He spent his adult life based in Denmark, and<br />
died in Copenhagen in 1754.<br />
Having graduated from the University of Copenhagen (the only university in<br />
the dual monarchy at the time), he expanded his cultural and intellectual horizon<br />
by undertaking several trips abroad – to England, France and Italy, for example.<br />
In 1714 he embarked upon an academic career at the University; at first in a very<br />
modest capacity, and then in 1730 advancing to the rank of professor in his chosen<br />
subject of history.<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong> evolved several genres of Danish literature. In 1719 he broke through<br />
as a writer with what he called his “poetiske raptus” (poetic rapture), a frenetic<br />
comic-satiric outpouring that intensified when the first professional Danishlanguage<br />
theatre was established in 1722. In record time, between 1722 and 1727,<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong> wrote twenty-seven plays. His main source of inspiration was Molière,<br />
along with the plays of Antiquity, particularly the work of Plautus, and commedia<br />
dell’arte with its robust and disrespectful comedy. His purpose was a critical<br />
discussion of human behaviour, based on the idea that exposure of irrationality<br />
and ridiculousness had a regulating effect. His gallery of characters encompasses<br />
burghers in the town and peasants in the countryside, gods and heroes of Antiquity,<br />
and the farce roles of masked comedy. He was gradually obliged to mix the satire<br />
with attentiveness to ‘entertainment value’; theatre was a business. But constant to<br />
his plays is an element of either making a fool of or being made a fool of, an ingenious<br />
back-and-forth between fiction and reality, madness and absurdity reflecting<br />
conventions and norms in a satirical light.<br />
Given that the theatre in Copenhagen was in practice closed for religious<br />
reasons between 1728 and 1747, <strong>Holberg</strong> devoted himself to issues of history<br />
and moral philosophy, and wrote a science fiction novel in Latin (1741, Nicolai<br />
Klimii iter subterraneum, Niels Klim’s Journey Underground), which achieved<br />
considerable international distribution. While so doing, he also attended with<br />
great competence to his ‘day job’ dealing with the administrative and financial<br />
interests of the University.<br />
11
<strong>Holberg</strong>, who never married, became a landed proprietor and a Baron, a title<br />
granted by the king of Denmark, which gave him a tax advantage that – plus the<br />
income from selling his works – made him a very wealthy man; this enabled him<br />
to fund an academy, projected to operate along the lines of a modern alternative<br />
to the University. When theatrical performance was once again permitted, he<br />
became actively involved in the running of the playhouse and wrote another<br />
six plays, which proved somewhat lacking in the inspired wit of his first period<br />
as dramatist. The Academy exists to this day, now as a ‘gymnasium’ (upper<br />
secondary school), in the town of Sorø in mid-Sealand, the part of the country<br />
where <strong>Holberg</strong>’s barony was established in 1747. <strong>Holberg</strong> lies buried in Sorø<br />
Abbey Church, situated in the grounds of the Academy.<br />
In many respects, <strong>Holberg</strong> was a traveller throughout his life: in countries,<br />
cultures, fictions. He was tirelessly observant and analytical, telling his stories<br />
with irony and paradox, and providing his audience and his readers with the<br />
opportunity to question accustomed ideas about reality.<br />
A complicated delivery<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong> published his plays under the pseudonym ‘Hans Mikkelsen’, supposedly<br />
a licensed brewer in a provincial Danish town. This man ‘Mikkelsen’ also worked<br />
in partnership with the intellectual ‘Just Justesen’, who enriched the poet’s texts<br />
with erudite introductions and notes. By thus playing with identities, Professor<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong> had donned a protective mask behind which he could wield his pen.<br />
In 1723, ‘Justesen’ wrote a preface to the first batch of plays, a ‘reflection’ in<br />
which he championed the legitimacy of the theatre. This short treatise is the first<br />
Danish ‘poetics of dramaturgy’. The text established the foundations for theatre<br />
activities, setting out key principles that proved significant for the evolution of<br />
Danish theatre and dramatic art in general.<br />
The Danish actors who performed on the newly-opened stage were students<br />
(they had some acting experience from participation in plays at the Latin secondary<br />
school), who would later take up posts in the Church and in the schools. The<br />
Church, however, was generally not at all keen on the theatre, an aversion that<br />
can be traced back to the early Church Fathers. Historically, this negative view of<br />
the art form and its practitioners had sometimes led to harsh and uncompromising<br />
consequences. In England, for example, not long after Shakespeare’s death,<br />
Cromwell’s Puritans came to power and closed the theatres; this religiouslymotivated<br />
ban on theatrical performance lasted for twenty years. In France,<br />
specific legislation excluded actors from the Church community; one of the more<br />
famous consequences being the difficulties involved in giving Molière a Christian<br />
burial, despite royal patronage.<br />
12
In several respects, the new theatre in Copenhagen had a complicated birth.<br />
Even though the audience flocked to the shows – in the early days, at least –<br />
the theatre finances were tight, and antagonism from University and Church was<br />
massive. Those who took to the stage might well find their future potential as<br />
pastors or teachers sullied by a past as practitioners in this unsavoury occupation.<br />
Opposition deepened under the increasing influence of pietism, a godliness that<br />
homed in zealously on all manner of vanity and sensual pleasure. From this<br />
perspective, the theatre was seen as sinful and harmful, both for those doing it<br />
and for those watching it. The criticism was not entirely a matter of ridiculous<br />
paranoia. Theatre is a physical art form, dealing with sexuality, deception,<br />
seduction or transgression. It operates in zones of illusion – ambiguity, aberration,<br />
duplicity – which, viewed from a Christian standpoint, belonged to the realm of<br />
the Devil, the father of lies. Artistic presentation does, in fact, exercise influence<br />
on the individual.<br />
The University was swift to take disciplinary measures against the actors. <strong>Holberg</strong>,<br />
being a colleague of the professors of theology, could not step forward and defend the<br />
theatre in person. He could, however, send ‘Just Justesen’ into the fray.<br />
Undercover polemics<br />
In his reflections, ‘Justesen’ references statements made by Church Fathers, kings<br />
and princes, past and present. He mentions, for example, an anti-theatre treatise<br />
written by Prince Armand de Bourbon-Conti (1629–1666), Traité de la comédie<br />
et des spectacles, selon la tradition de l’Église tirée des conciles et des saints Peres (1666),<br />
which passed harsh judgement on both Corneille and Molière – after, it should be<br />
added, he had for a period patronised Molière’s troupe. ‘Justesen’ then refers to<br />
“En stor theologus” (a distinguished theologian) who defended the stage; this was<br />
the Theatine Father Francois Caffaro (c.1650–1720), who in Lettre d’un théologien<br />
illustre (1694) discusses whether theatre should be permitted or totally prohibited<br />
– and argues for a positive view of the stage.<br />
In line with Caffaro, ‘Justesen’ argues for the seemliness of being involved<br />
with stage plays as writer or actor. He plays his trump card in maintaining that the<br />
opposite standpoint is expressive of an “unnatural taste”. To <strong>Holberg</strong>, ‘nature’ is a<br />
constant, unlike convention and fashion, which are relative quantities determined<br />
by their period. Seemliness, according to ‘Justesen’, is a matter of convention, not<br />
of nature. If convention views theatre as seemly, then by definition it is seemly.<br />
In this connection, he quotes freely from the works of Sir Richard Blackmore.<br />
English poet and physician Blackmore (1654–1729), now largely forgotten, was<br />
a man of consequence in his day, and wrote at length on the subject of Wit and<br />
morality.<br />
13
Controversy about the moral legitimacy of the theatre played out in many<br />
countries, including England. It was partly a matter of the content of the playtexts:<br />
ought they to promote morality? And partly about theatre per se: was the acting<br />
profession by definition tainted and sinful? ‘Justesen’ applied his reason to both<br />
these discussions. Blackmore argued for an upgrading of the moral function of<br />
the theatre. The discussions continued throughout the early part of the eighteenth<br />
century, and <strong>Holberg</strong> would certainly have been party to the arguments for and<br />
against when he stayed in Oxford and London, 1706–1708. In Denmark, the<br />
debate took off in earnest in 1722.<br />
Returning to Caffaro, he was promptly put in his place from the highest<br />
theological quarters in France. The arguments used against him are identical to<br />
those on the theology-academia backdrop to the new Danish stage – but ‘Justesen’<br />
does not mention these at all. He refers to Church Fathers, Jesuits, Greece, France,<br />
England, and so forth, but without explicitly quoting the discussions in Denmark.<br />
That would have been too sensitive a point. The polemic strategy employed by<br />
‘Justesen’ adds another layer to the <strong>Holberg</strong>ian masquerade. Not only is the writer<br />
fictional, but what he writes is not what he is talking about – his pen is a mask.<br />
Once ‘Justesen’ has sorted out the issues – and the pastors! – he devises<br />
some principles and strategies for the new theatre. The dramatist must be able<br />
to imagine how the text will work on stage. Funny lines and inventive business,<br />
albeit perhaps amusing when read, are not enough; there must be appreciation<br />
of the more intangible stage strategies that draw the audience into the play (and<br />
of which, incidentally, the translator should be aware). On the other hand, the<br />
dramatist must also be careful with regard to exaggerated or downright outlandish<br />
behaviour by the characters. Recognition via likelihood is central; the audience<br />
should be transported within an illusion of ‘reality’. Therefore, theatre scripts from<br />
abroad ought to be adapted, localised. The characters should be rendered Danish.<br />
In practice, the theatre in Copenhagen absorbed European impulses and inspiration<br />
in fruitful combinations of home-and-abroad, also in plays written by ‘Mikkelsen’.<br />
In a concluding section, which is not included here, ‘Justesen’ particularises<br />
the characteristics of various plays in a discussion of the relationship between<br />
theatre that is purely spectacular and theatre that is purely language. His reasoning<br />
would seem to be more impassioned than logical – such as when he points out that<br />
‘Mikkelsen’ can be successful even without the use of stage spectacle, and then<br />
in the same breath pans Molière’s Misanthrope for ‘only’ offering witty dialogue.<br />
Above all, however, according to ‘Mikkelsen’ and ‘Justesen’, alias Ludvig<br />
<strong>Holberg</strong>, the innermost essence of the theatre is a matter of (carnivalesque) vitality,<br />
a sense for the grotesque and the paradox, and involvement of the audience.<br />
‘Justesen’ defines the ultimate dynamic as “festivity, gaiety and the art of making<br />
people laugh”. If that ‘salt’ is lacking, then theatre loses its potency.<br />
14
Further reading:<br />
Carlson, Marvin A., Theories of the Theatre, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and<br />
London 1993<br />
Barish, Jonas, the antitheatrical prejudice¸ University of California Press, London<br />
1981<br />
15
16
Just Justesen’s Reflections on Theatre<br />
1723<br />
There have formerly been disputes among writers about theatre plays. Some have<br />
considered them harmful and offensive, others necessary and edifying. Cyprian<br />
denounces plays, saying: “Adulterium discitur dum videtur”. 1 Yet other Church<br />
Fathers consider them harmless. Saint Louis IX, 2 King of France, expels players<br />
from France. Another equally devout king brings them back again. A Prince<br />
de Conti 3 writes a whole book against plays, saying: “The intention of plays is<br />
to excite the emotions, and that of the Christian religion is to calm them.” A<br />
distinguished theologian, on the other hand, sets aside other business and uses<br />
his pen in the defence of theatre plays. 4 Thus, no subject seems more problematic.<br />
All are perhaps correct, and the conflicting opinions may be reconciled by<br />
differentiating between the chaste and the immodest plays. For defence of a<br />
Plautus Merchant would be just as foolish as censure of his Captives. But thereby,<br />
it is said, the dispute is not settled; for there are those who grant that stage<br />
performance can be harmless, but nonetheless do not like respectable and old folk<br />
to pass their time in watching and reading childish amusements. Others, however,<br />
maintain that it is more or less as profitable to read plays as it is to read sermons.<br />
When a Hugo Grotius 5 is asked by other learned folk why he has Terence in his<br />
pocket, he replies: “Because he is worth it.” Should you wonder what profit he has<br />
from the reading of plays, he replies: “Children read one thing therein, and adults<br />
another.” Thus can the conflicts herein also easily be settled; for who can deny<br />
that Amphitryon and Menaechmi, or The Twin-Brothers have been written purely to<br />
while away the time; who can also deny that there is indeed learning and moral in<br />
The Pot of Gold? 6 If you say: “Why then is so much useless folly mixed into moral<br />
plays?” the answer is: “Why do apothecaries gild their pills?” For it is called:<br />
Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile dulci. 7<br />
1 ‘Adultery is learned while it is seen’. Saint Cyprian of Carthage, 3rd-century Church Father,<br />
Epistle 1:8.<br />
2 1226–1270.<br />
3 Armand de Bourbon (1629–1666), Prince de Conti: Traité de la Comédie et des Spectacles, selon la<br />
Tradition de l’Église, Tirée des Conciles et des Saints Pères (Paris 1667).<br />
4 Father Caffaro, a Theatine theologian; in Jean Guignard: Lettre d’un theologien illustre par sa qualité<br />
et par son merite (Paris 1694).<br />
5 Hugo Grotius or Huig de Groot (1583–1645), prominent Dutch jurist, philosopher and theologian.<br />
6 Three plays by Plautus (c. 254–184 BC).<br />
7 ‘He gains universal applause who mingles the useful with the agreeable’. Horace: Ars Poetica v.<br />
343.<br />
17
Should Molière wish folk to swallow a Misanthrope, it must be gilded with a Doctor<br />
in Spite of Himself. To mix folly into plays is thus just as necessary as greasing the<br />
wheels of a carriage and drinking with your meal; because without the first, the<br />
last cannot be digested. Herein, as well as in many other instances, you could<br />
easily come to an agreement if you go to the correct source and examine what is<br />
the only and rightful cause of such conflicts.<br />
Personally, I consider it perfectly needless to speak for or against in this<br />
matter. I shall restrict myself exclusively to two small questions submitted of late<br />
on account of recently presented Danish plays, being: (1) if the writing of plays<br />
conflicts with the station and character of certain persons, (2) if it is seemly and<br />
decent for the children of respectable men to be employed in theatrical activities.<br />
The first is not too difficult to answer, given that we have plays and merry<br />
novels written by princes, counts, barons, knights, yes priests, monks and Jesuits<br />
in our day, and by the most capable and greatest men in olden times, who either<br />
wrote their own works or helped others to do so. The Greeks had such great<br />
respect for playwrights that they claimed Aristophanes made Athens stronger with<br />
his plays than did its military forces by land and sea alike. Indeed, in the crucial<br />
questions he posed to the Lacedaemonian envoys, the King of Persia probed them<br />
about the nature of Aristophanes’ life, as the aforesaid playwright himself testifies<br />
in one of his plays called Acharnians, which, albeit almost as exaggerated as the<br />
Chinese philosophers opining that a state could not be well governed without<br />
music, nonetheless shows the degree of respect in which the most judicious nations<br />
held theatre dramas in olden times, when plays were far from as pure and chaste<br />
as they are nowadays, nor so ingenious or moral.<br />
It is indeed true that Amphitryon and The Miser, translated by Molière from<br />
Plautus’ plays, are still in our day of the very best. The remainder, on the other<br />
hand, are in no way their equal, far less the plays of Terence and Aristophanes.<br />
Although those who are patrons of the old plays might say, as is true in certain<br />
ways, that each nation, each century has its taste, and thus what was of the greatest<br />
beauty in the Greeks’ day will now mostly grate upon our ears, and what now grates<br />
most upon our ears might be considered most tasteful by our descendants. Of this<br />
Blackmore, 8 an Englishman, gives strange examples in his nation alone. Now, he<br />
says, I find that our nation has taken greatest delight in extravagant occurrences<br />
8 Sir Richard Blackmore (1654–1729), to whom <strong>Holberg</strong> refers a number of times in his works, was<br />
a physician and prolific writer. He considered much contemporary literature to be decadent, and<br />
determined to counteract this via his own publications. Here, <strong>Holberg</strong> is possibly summing up<br />
some of Blackmore’s thoughts as expressed in his Essay upon Wit (1716), plus elements from Satyr<br />
against Wit (1700), the Prefaces to Prince Arthur: An Heroick Poem in Ten Books (1695) and King Arthur:<br />
An Heroick Poem in Twelve Books (1697), and his ongoing conflict with the Wits of the day in, for<br />
example, the competing 1700 publications Commendatory Verses (the Wits) v. Discommendatory Verses<br />
(Blackmore’s supporters).<br />
18
and incredible exploits and knights errant, sometimes in expressions of a double<br />
meaning, sometimes in magnificent garb, sometimes in sweet and pleasing manners<br />
of speech, polite ideas and parables and finally in uncomfortable but superior<br />
erudition – as is the case with music: pleasure was once found in harmony, but now<br />
in dissonance and that which grates upon the ear.<br />
Such like, although it is not without reason advanced in defence of the old<br />
plays, does not necessarily mean that people of our day are perfectly insensible<br />
in judgement of old writings; for that which is called ideas and bon sens 9 is always<br />
the same, and although someone might not be so fortunate as to understand the<br />
original manuscripts, he can still see from translations that Achilles, in Homer,<br />
speaks like a coarse coachman, and that large swathes of Aristophanes’ ideas make<br />
no sense. We are therefore at liberty to say that the new plays, in politeness as in<br />
learning and modesty, surpass the old; that decent folk are nowadays reproached<br />
for writing ingenious and edifying plays is therefore purely the consequence of<br />
envy or an unnatural taste. Indeed, those who close their ears to such matters have<br />
just the same natural defect in hearing as the man who felled trees around his farm<br />
so as not to hear the nightingale, and instead took pleasure in hearing the frogs; or<br />
like the Scythian General who would rather hear a horse neigh than the sweetest<br />
musical harmony.<br />
As to the second objection, that it is not decent for respectable men’s children,<br />
who will one day serve churches and schools, to perform on stage, the answer<br />
given states that what is called decorum or bienséance 10 is dependent upon the<br />
fashions of the country. In England and France, it is the fashion for ministers of<br />
the Church to visit playhouses and coffee houses, for which reason it is no longer<br />
unseemly. In former times, it was against the fashion of the country for men to<br />
wear clothing of silk, and it was accordingly indecent for them so to do. As soon,<br />
therefore, as the high authorities say that it shall not be considered unseemly for<br />
decent folk to perform in plays, then it will immediately cease to be unseemly,<br />
and as soon as all the Church ministers of the city should resolve to attend the<br />
playhouse, it would be no more indecent for them than for the clergy in England<br />
and France; as when a distinguished lady once resolved to sit in the stalls, and it<br />
was then considered to be a most decent fashion for townswomen to do the same.<br />
And thus all such practices, when not sinful, as soon as the fashion of the country<br />
claims they are seemly, they immediately become seemly, and as soon as the high<br />
authorities give them another name, they immediately conflict with the so-called<br />
bienséance. I shall not speak of the many good people in our day who have in their<br />
youth performed on stage and have since been promoted to academies, churches<br />
and schools, for that is just as effortless as unnecessary to demonstrate.<br />
9 ‘good sense’<br />
10 ‘propriety’<br />
19
Some people, however, consider the writing of plays to be work for any merry<br />
mind, although experience shows that hardly three or four in a whole realm can<br />
be said equal to such a task; for a playwright has to be, firstly, a philosopher who<br />
has studied in depth that which is called ridiculous in the human race. Secondly,<br />
he must have the ability to give follies a good beating, and do so in a way that also<br />
entertains. Thirdly, he must be able to picture the performance in his mind; for<br />
sometimes the play that is merry reading can be the least pleasing in the theatre,<br />
because that something which cannot easily be described, but which makes a stage<br />
come to life, is rendered through ingenuity and witty ideas. Fourthly, that by the<br />
reading of good plays, he is aware of all the rules which must thus be observed.<br />
One must beware, however, that one does not attempt to make a stage come to life<br />
in a way that causes offence to what is called bon sens.<br />
Even though it is necessary to exaggerate the characters, this should not be<br />
done in such a way that a ridiculous protagonist is turned into a madman. When<br />
Jean de France 11 buttons his coat on back to front, to me he promptly seems not<br />
quite right in the head. But when I consider how keen people are instantly to<br />
follow even the most preposterous French fashions, then it seems to me that it<br />
is feasible, indeed less preposterous than standing with glass of wine in hand for<br />
almost half an hour while warbling oneself hoarse before downing it. Conversely,<br />
I cannot think of anything to justify the bourgeois gentleman’s 12 character. But<br />
when I see him throw off his robe and then put it on again in order to feel if the<br />
music sounds better in his uncovered clothes than in his robe, and similarly when<br />
I see him being fooled into thinking the Turkish emperor’s son has come to Paris<br />
solely in order to propose to his daughter, then I do not have the impression that<br />
the character is exaggerated, but that the person is fit for the madhouse. Boileau 13<br />
had greater cause to censure the bourgeois gentleman and the hypochondriac,<br />
who in his drawing room allowed himself be appointed doctor in order to be<br />
cured, than the old man who Scapin got to crawl into a sack. 14 A playwright must<br />
endeavour to make sure the plays he presents are natural and devoid of affectation,<br />
so the audience is able to imagine that it is real. It is therefore desirable that the<br />
setting for each play should be the land wherein it is being performed, so that the<br />
audience might not have to invent other countries in their minds and, the moment<br />
they have received their ticket, fancy, as it were, that they along with the entire<br />
playhouse have instantly been transported to Rome, Greece, Spain or France.<br />
11 <strong>Holberg</strong>’s play Jean de France (1723); the eponymous hero, Francophile Hans Frandsen, is tricked<br />
into strange behaviour when told it is ultra-fashionable in Paris.<br />
12 Reference to Molière, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, (1670).<br />
13 Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux (1636–1711), poet, literary critic.<br />
14 A scene from Molière’s Les Fourberies de Scapin (1671).<br />
20