Leseprobe_Holm_Holberg Plays Volume I

Controversy about the moral legitimacy of the theatre played out in many
countries, including England. It was partly a matter of the content of the playtexts:
ought they to promote morality? And partly about theatre per se: was the acting
profession by definition tainted and sinful? ‘Justesen’ applied his reason to both
these discussions. Blackmore argued for an upgrading of the moral function of
the theatre. The discussions continued throughout the early part of the eighteenth
century, and Holberg would certainly have been party to the arguments for and
against when he stayed in Oxford and London, 1706–1708. In Denmark, the
debate took off in earnest in 1722.
Returning to Caffaro, he was promptly put in his place from the highest
theological quarters in France. The arguments used against him are identical to
those on the theology-academia backdrop to the new Danish stage – but ‘Justesen’
does not mention these at all. He refers to Church Fathers, Jesuits, Greece, France,
England, and so forth, but without explicitly quoting the discussions in Denmark.
That would have been too sensitive a point. The polemic strategy employed by
‘Justesen’ adds another layer to the Holbergian masquerade. Not only is the writer
fictional, but what he writes is not what he is talking about – his pen is a mask.
Once ‘Justesen’ has sorted out the issues – and the pastors! – he devises
some principles and strategies for the new theatre. The dramatist must be able
to imagine how the text will work on stage. Funny lines and inventive business,
albeit perhaps amusing when read, are not enough; there must be appreciation
of the more intangible stage strategies that draw the audience into the play (and
of which, incidentally, the translator should be aware). On the other hand, the
dramatist must also be careful with regard to exaggerated or downright outlandish
behaviour by the characters. Recognition via likelihood is central; the audience
should be transported within an illusion of ‘reality’. Therefore, theatre scripts from
abroad ought to be adapted, localised. The characters should be rendered Danish.
In practice, the theatre in Copenhagen absorbed European impulses and inspiration
in fruitful combinations of home-and-abroad, also in plays written by ‘Mikkelsen’.
In a concluding section, which is not included here, ‘Justesen’ particularises
the characteristics of various plays in a discussion of the relationship between
theatre that is purely spectacular and theatre that is purely language. His reasoning
would seem to be more impassioned than logical – such as when he points out that
‘Mikkelsen’ can be successful even without the use of stage spectacle, and then
in the same breath pans Molière’s Misanthrope for ‘only’ offering witty dialogue.
Above all, however, according to ‘Mikkelsen’ and ‘Justesen’, alias Ludvig
Holberg, the innermost essence of the theatre is a matter of (carnivalesque) vitality,
a sense for the grotesque and the paradox, and involvement of the audience.
‘Justesen’ defines the ultimate dynamic as “festivity, gaiety and the art of making
people laugh”. If that ‘salt’ is lacking, then theatre loses its potency.
14