sometimes leave one unsatisfied, wishing a few dangling questions had been addressed, a key idea pushed further, an unmentioned source recognized. The impulse to leave out citations is understandable but mistaken. Cutting off such immediate access to the texts that feed each essay limits the utility of the collection. That said, the short essays and wide range of topics recommend this book to students. It is an easy-to-browse introduction to the field that is begging to have its clusters broken up into PDFs and put on undergraduate syllabi. More advanced scholars will find it to be a useful primer on recent developments outside their specialties. One wonders why more conferences and associations do not periodically release such accessible state-of-the-field collections. The truly affecting moments come when the collection turns away from Shakespeare and toward Our Time. In the closing cluster, “Ecocriticism,” Steve Mentz reads Troilus and Cressida as creating “an antipastoral vision of the natural world as a site of constant disruption. . . . In this fluid environment, human order seems fragile” (338). It was hauntingly appropriate to read these lines in New Orleans, that once and future sunken city. In “The Ghost of the Public University,” Henry S. Turner writes, “for those of us who teach at public universities, that time has never been more out of joint” (289). The familiar figure of Old Hamlet’s Ghost now stands in for the embattled state college, a universitas that has become unhinged from the collective values that once sustained it. Hollowed out by declining humanities enrollment, gutted budgets, and commercial pressures, the public university risks becoming “a shell, a virtual avatar or automaton, a mere ‘machine’” (293) repeating its steps without purpose or intent. Instead, Turner calls for “the universitas [to] come to its senses and embrace its identity as a group person endowed with purpose, will, and life . . . the Ghost is watching us to see how we respond” (293). In its gathering of Shakespeareans, both in hotel conference rooms and between the pale blue covers of the collection, the SAA and Shakespeare in Our Time strive to become such a “group person,” be it the many-beasted Ajax of Troilus and Cressida, the dyspeptic body politic of Coriolanus, or, more kindly, the graceful dances and busy societies at the happy endings of comedies. The SAA has been gathering Shakespeareans for forty-four years now. May it continue to do so, and continue to produce occasional mementos like Shakespeare in Our Time.

中文翻译：

---

李尔年：1606 年的莎士比亚，詹姆斯·夏皮罗

有时会让一个人不满意，希望一些悬而未决的问题已经得到解决，一个关键的想法被进一步推动，一位未提及的消息来源承认。忽略引用的冲动是可以理解的，但这是错误的。切断对提供每篇文章的文本的这种直接访问限制了集合的效用。也就是说，短文和广泛的主题向学生推荐这本书。这是一个易于浏览的领域介绍，该领域正在乞求将其集群分解为 PDF 并纳入本科教学大纲。更高级的学者会发现它是了解其专业以外的最新发展的有用入门书。有人想知道为什么更多的会议和协会不定期发布这种可访问的现状收藏。当系列从莎士比亚转向我们的时代时，真正感人的时刻就会到来。在最后一个集群“生态批评”中，史蒂夫·门茨将特洛伊罗斯和克瑞西达解读为“将自然世界视为一个不断受到破坏的场所的反田园景象”。. . . 在这种流动的环境中，人类秩序似乎很脆弱”（338）。在新奥尔良这个曾经和未来的沉没城市读到这些诗句是非常合适的。在“公立大学的幽灵”中，亨利·S·特纳 (Henry S. Turner) 写道，“对于我们这些在公立大学任教的人来说，这段时间从未如此不合时宜”（289）。老哈姆雷特的幽灵这个熟悉的人物现在代表着四面楚歌的州立大学，这所大学已经脱离了曾经支撑它的集体价值观。由于人文学科入学人数下降、预算减少、在商业压力和商业压力下，公立大学有可能成为“一个外壳、一个虚拟化身或自动机、一个纯粹的‘机器’”(293)，无目的或无意图地重复其步骤。取而代之的是，特纳呼吁“大学 [to] 恢复理智并接受其作为一个被赋予目标、意志和生命的群体的身份。. . 幽灵正在注视着我们，看我们如何回应”（293）。在莎士比亚的聚会中，无论是在酒店会议室还是在藏品的淡蓝色封面之间，SAA 和我们时代的莎士比亚都力争成为这样一个“集体人物”，无论是特洛伊罗斯和克瑞西达的众多野兽阿贾克斯，科利奥兰纳斯消化不良的身体政治，或者更亲切的是，喜剧大团圆结局中优雅的舞蹈和忙碌的社会。四十四年来，SAA 一直在聚集莎士比亚。愿它继续这样做，