Shakespeare continues to feature in the construction and refashioning of national cultures and identities in a variety of original forms. Recent discussions about originality have forced us to re-assess what we mean by Shakespeare, for originality is not only something pertaining to the past, going backwards in time to an "origin", but also refers to "original" interpretations of Shakespeare in modern culture, which break away from a tradition, and provide modern reformulations. In the light of these views that demand a revaluation of Shakespeare as an original author, we need to rethink the idea of Shakespeare's originality today in a variety of places and forms. But first we should clarify what we understand by originality, or being original, as the term can be confusing since it is often related to authenticity, innovation, creativity and imitation. Besides, how many ways of being original are there? Is it only due to the genius of the artist, to the appreciation of the critic or to the culture of the reader/spectator, if we take culture as "a mental construct which fuses together elements of myth and history, desire and projection, imagination, and accomplishment."1 We should also take into account the contested legacy of originality of post-colonial Shakespeares in former British possessions as well as post-national Shakespeares which have become the focus of debates concerning national mythologizing and multiculturalism. Originality is, therefore, a complex topic that needs further consideration. Some have attempted to define what makes Shakespeare original by referring to his uniqueness in order to explain his genius in some way. As Jonathan Bate claims, "'Genius' was a category to account for what was peculiar about Shakespeare."2 If he had not been original and had been deemed to be just the same as every other writer, then he would not be held in such high regard four hundred years on. It might also be argued, as Edwards Said observed, that since "the writer thinks of writing originally, and more of rewriting, the image of writing changes from original inscription to parallel script, from tumbled-out our confidence to deliberate fathering-forth."3 Thus re-writing transcends imitation and origins.The volume, therefore, explores new original ways of appropriating, interpreting and re-producing Shakespeare today in different cultures and contexts in accordance with particular interests and anxieties, showing the ideological tension inherent in the local versus the global, in originality versus other original forms and reproductions. Within a theoretical framework, Marcela Kostihova's paper is concerned with the question of the "authentically original," proposing a re-definition of what we mean by "originality" and "authenticity" today, and their ideological and social implications, since our readings and interpretations of texts are firmly anchored in the pressures of the present. She shows how the tension between the two concepts causes further trouble when we come to deal with the original/authentic Shakespeare in a global economy, where these two concepts have become central in the market. If "meaning is ideologically produced at the point of consumption, erasing the meaning-making mechanism of the source-culture," what do we mean, then, by original within a consumer culture? In this way, she calls into question the possibility of making Shakespeare original today, as her reading of Twelfth Night illustrates. Since our interpretations are always changing, depending on the commodification of individualized subjectivity and selective consumption, Shakespeare's originality remains "perpetually elusive" in a world that constantly re-creates values.The articles by Martin Prochazka and Paul Innes deal with the process by which Shakespeare has been transformed into a national icon, which, in some ways, has become normatively constitutive of the national identity as seen in the re-writings of his plays in a particular historical context, where the mythologizing takes place. …

中文翻译：

---

简介：重写和翻译莎士比亚在全球文化中的独创性

莎士比亚继续以各种原始形式出现在民族文化和身份的建构和重塑中。最近关于原创性的讨论迫使我们重新评估莎士比亚的含义，因为原创性不仅与过去有关，时光倒流到“起源”，还指代现代莎士比亚的“原始”解释。文化，它脱离了传统，提供了现代的表述方式。鉴于这些观点要求对莎士比亚作为原著进行重新评估，我们需要在各种地方和形式上重新考虑莎士比亚今天的创意。但是首先，我们应该通过独创性或独创性来阐明我们所理解的内容，因为该术语通常与真实性相关，因此可能会造成混淆，创新，创造力和模仿。此外，有多少种原创方式？如果我们将文化视为“一种将神话与历史，欲望与投射，想象力融合在一起的精神建构，那是否仅是由于艺术家的天才，评论家的欣赏还是读者/观众的文化？ ，和成就。” 1我们还应考虑到后殖民莎士比亚在前英国财产以及后国家莎士比亚中独创性的有争议遗产，后者已成为有关民族神话化和多元文化主义的辩论焦点。因此，创意是一个复杂的话题，需要进一步考虑。有些人试图通过参考莎士比亚的独特性来定义他的独创性，从而以某种方式解释他的天才。正如乔纳森·贝特（Jonathan Bate）所言，“'天才'是解释莎士比亚特有事物的一个类别。” 2如果他不是原著者，并且被认为与其他作家一样，那么他将不会被拘捕。这么高的声望四百年了。正如爱德华兹·赛义德（Edwards Said）观察到的那样，也可能会争辩说，由于“作家考虑最初写作，而更多地考虑重写，写作的形象从原始铭文变为平行文字，从我们的信心跌落到刻意的养育。 “ 3因此，改写超越了模仿和起源。因此，本卷探讨了根据特定的兴趣和忧虑在不同文化和背景下运用，解释和再现当今莎士比亚的新原始方式，在原创性与其他原始形式和复制品之间表现出本地与全球之间固有的意识形态张力。在理论框架内，马塞拉·科斯蒂霍瓦（Marcela Kostihova）的论文关注“真实地原创”的问题，提出了对我们今天的“原始性”和“真实性”的含义及其意识形态和社会含义的重新定义，因为我们的阅读和文本的解释牢固地扎根于当前的压力。她向我们展示了当我们面对全球经济中原始/真实的莎士比亚时，这两个概念之间的紧张关系如何造成进一步的麻烦，而这两个概念已成为市场的中心。如果“意义是在消费时从意识形态上产生的，在消费文化中独创？以这种方式，她质疑莎士比亚今天创作原创作品的可能性，正如她对《十二夜》的解读所表明的那样。由于我们的解释总是在变化，取决于个性化主观性和选择性消费的商品化，莎士比亚的独创性在不断重创造价值的世界中仍然“永远难以捉摸”。马丁·普罗恰兹卡和保罗·因内斯的文章探讨了莎士比亚的创作过程已被转变成一个民族偶像，从某种意义上说，它已成为民族身份的规范构成，正如他在神话般发生的特定历史语境中的剧本改写中所看到的那样。… 在消费文化中独创？以这种方式，她质疑莎士比亚今天创作原创作品的可能性，正如她对《十二夜》的解读所表明的那样。由于我们的解释总是在变化，取决于个性化主观性和选择性消费的商品化，莎士比亚的独创性在不断重新创造价值的世界中仍然“永远难以捉摸”。已被转变成一个民族偶像，从某种意义上说，它已成为民族身份的规范构成，正如他在神话般发生的特定历史语境中的剧本改写中所看到的那样。… 正如她对《十二夜》的解读所说明的那样。由于我们的解释总是在变化，取决于个性化主观性和选择性消费的商品化，莎士比亚的独创性在不断重创造价值的世界中仍然“永远难以捉摸”。马丁·普罗恰兹卡和保罗·因内斯的文章探讨了莎士比亚的创作过程已被转变成一个民族偶像，从某种意义上说，它已成为民族身份的规范构成，正如他在神话般发生的特定历史语境中的剧本改写中所看到的那样。… 正如她对《十二夜》的解读所说明的那样。由于我们的解释总是在变化，取决于个性化主观性和选择性消费的商品化，莎士比亚的独创性在不断重创造价值的世界中仍然“永远难以捉摸”。马丁·普罗恰兹卡和保罗·因内斯的文章探讨了莎士比亚的创作过程已被转变成一个民族偶像，从某种意义上说，它已成为民族身份的规范构成，正如他在神话般发生的特定历史语境中的剧本改写中所看到的那样。…