run's Falstaff almost reconciles us to the sacrifice. Long may he live
and delight us with it! It is one of his most superb creations. The cast
as a whole is warmly praised. It is interesting to note that at the
close of the review the critic suggests that the text be revised with
Hagberg's Swedish translation at hand, for Lembcke's Danish contains
many words unusual or even unfamiliar in Norwegian.

_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 de