being an important character is
overshadowed by Prince Hal. The Falstaff scenes, on the other hand, are
left almost in their original fulness, and thus constitute a much more
important part of the play than they do in the original. The article
closes with a glowing tribute to Johannes Brun as Falstaff.

_Morgenbladet_[15] goes into greater detail. The reviewer seems to think
that Shakespeare had some deep purpose in dividing the material into two
parts--he wished to have room to develop the character of Prince Henry.
"Accordingly, in the first part he gives us the early stages of Prince
Hal's growth, beginning with the Prince of Wales as a sort of superior
rake and tracing the development of his better qualities. In Part II we
see the complete assertion of his spiritual and intellectual powers."
The writer overlooks the fact that what Shakespeare was writing first of
all--or rather, what he was revising--was a chronicle. If he required
more than five acts to give the history of Henry IV he could use ten and
call it two plays. If, in so doing, he gave admirable characterization,
it was something inherent in his own genius, not in the materials with
which he was working.

[15. February 17, 1867.]

The history, says the reviewer, and the Falstaff scenes are the
background for the study of the Prince, each one serving a distinct
purpose. But here the history has been made meaningless and the Falstaff
episodes have been put in the foreground. He points out that balance,
proportion, and perspective are all lost by this. Yet, granting that
such revolutionizing of a masterpiece is ever allowable, it must be
admitted that Bjornson has done it with considerable skill. Bjornson's
purpose is clear enough. He knew that Johannes Brun as Falstaff would
score a triumph, and this success for his theater he was determined to
secure. The same motive was back of the version which Stjernstrom put on
in Stockholm, and there can be little doubt that his success suggested
the idea to Bjornson. The nature of the cutting reveals the purpose at
every step. For instance, the scene in which the Gadskill robbery is
made clear, is cut entirely. We thus lose the first glimpse of the
sterner and manlier side of the royal reveller. In fact, if Bjornson had
been frank he would have called his play _Falstaff--based on certain
scenes from Shakespeare's Henry IV, Parts I and II_.

Yet, though much has been lost, much of what remains is excellent.
B