Finally, it should be noted that a Swedish travelling company under the direction of the well-known August Lindberg played Hamlet in Bergen on November 5, 1895.

It is apparent, from the tone of the press comment that a Shakespearean production was regarded as a serious undertaking.  The theater approached the task hesitatingly, and the newspapers always qualify their praise or their blame with some apologetic remark about “the limited resources of our theater.”  This explains the long gaps between new productions, five years between Othello (1881) and the complete Hamlet (1886); five years likewise between Hamlet and King Henry IV.

Henry IV in Bjornson’s stage cutting promised at first to establish itself.  Its first performance was greeted by a crowded house, and enthusiasm ran high.  The press questions the right of the play to the title of Henry IV, since it is a collection of scenes grouped about Prince Hal and Falstaff.  But aside from this purely objective criticism the comment is favorable.[35]

    [35.  Cf. Bergens Tidende, March 2, 1891; Bergens Aftenblad,
    March 2, 1891.]

With the second performance (March 4, 1891) comes a change. Bergens Tidende remarks that it is a common experience that a second performance is not so successful as the first.  Certainly this was true in the case of Henry IV.  The life and sparkle were gone, and the sallies of Falstaff awakened no such infectious laughter as they had a few evenings before.[36] There was no applause from the crowded house, and the coolness of the audience reacted upon the players—­all in violent contrast to the first performance.  The reviewer in Aftenbladet predicts that the production will have no very long life.[37] He was right.  It was given once more, on March 6.  Since then the theater-goers of Bergen have not seen it on their own stage.

    [36.  Cf.  March 5, 1891.]

    [37.  Cf.  March 5, 1891.]

Sille Beyer’s Viola (which, in turn, is an adaptation of the German of Deinhardstein) had been played twice at the old Bergen Theater, July 17 and 18, 1861.  It was now (Oct. 9, 1892) revived in a new cutting based on Lembcke’s Danish translation. Bergens Aftenblad declares that the cutting was reckless and the staging almost beggarly.  The presentation itself hardly rose above the mediocre.[38] Bergens Tidende, on the other hand, reports that the performance was an entire success.  The caste was unexpectedly strong; the costumes and scenery splendid.  The audience was appreciative and there was generous applause.[39]

    [38.  October 10, 1892.]

    [39.  October 10 and 13, 1892.]

The last new play to find a place on the repertoire at Bergen is Romeo and Juliet.  This was performed four times in May, 1897.  Like Henry IV, it promised to be a great success, but it survived only four performances. Bergens Tidende[40] gives a careful, well-written analysis of the play and of the presentation.  The reviewer gives full credit for the beauty of the staging and the excellence of the acting, but criticises the censor sharply for the unskillful cutting, and the stage manager for the long, tiresome waits. Bergens Aftenblad[41] praises the performance almost without reserve.