Hamlet’s Moment is much more than a book about Hamlet, although it is also very much that. Anchored in the years before and after 1600, Kiséry’s analysis extends far beyond the “moment” of its title, tracking long-term historical developments that transformed the theater’s engagement with politics and political knowledge. From a preoccupation with “what it meant to be king, and what it took to be king,” early modern drama turned to the consideration of “what it meant to be employed, and what it took to be employed” in politics as a profession (5). What it took, according to Kiséry, is above all the ability to talk politics—to be in the know, but also, and much more important, to be fluent in the language of statecraft. Participation in political conversation becomes a social necessity, a way of signaling membership among the informed. Hamlet figures more centrally in the first half of the book, which situates the play and its reception within the context of contemporary concerns over the inutility of a humanist education (already!); the replacement of the “soldier-courtier” with the “diplomat-politician” as the primary model of social advancement (25); and contemporary debates about republicanism, which Kiséry claims Shakespeare studiously avoided entering on either side. Each of these chapters builds toward a reading of Hamlet. There is playfulness here as well as rigor, particularly in the thought experiments Kiséry suggests about staging, but it is the research that really dazzles. At one point Kiséry offers a plausible route of transmission for the names Rosencrantz and Guildenstern into England via the letters of the diplomat Daniel Rogers. It is a fascinating bit of archival detective work involving French, German, and English sources, and it is offered up almost incidentally, as evidence of a larger point about the centrality of “diplomacy, embassies, travel, and letters” to the play (132). Such moments function almost like magic tricks, and the book is full of them. It is the second half of Hamlet’s Moment, however, that is likely to have the biggest impact. Kiséry offers a new understanding of how and why publics develop in and beyond the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He does so not by adjusting Habermas’s eighteenth-century timeline, but by asking, via Bourdieu, that we

中文翻译：

---

哈姆雷特的时刻：安德拉斯·基塞里（András Kiséry）的《早期现代英国的戏剧和政治知识》

《哈姆雷特的时刻》不仅仅是一本关于哈姆雷特的书，尽管它也是如此。Kiséry 的分析立足于 1600 年前后的几年，远远超出了其标题的“时刻”，追踪了长期的历史发展，这些发展改变了剧院对政治和政治知识的参与。从对“成为国王意味着什么，成为国王需要什么”的关注，早期的现代戏剧转向了对政治作为职业的“被雇用意味着什么，被雇用需要什么”的考虑(5). 根据 Kiséry 的说法，首先需要的是谈论政治的能力——了解情况，但更重要的是，要流利地使用治国方言。参与政治对话成为一种社会必需品，一种在知情者中表明成员身份的方式。哈姆雷特在本书的前半部分更为集中，将戏剧及其接受置于当代对人文主义教育无用性的关注（已经！）；用“外交官-政治家”取代“士兵-朝臣”作为社会进步的主要模式（25）；以及当代关于共和主义的辩论，Kiséry 声称莎士比亚刻意避免参与任何一方。这些章节中的每一章都建立在阅读哈姆雷特的基础上。这里既有趣味性也有严谨性，特别是在 Kiséry 建议的关于舞台的思想实验中，但真正令人眼花缭乱的是研究。有一次，Kiséry 通过外交官丹尼尔·罗杰斯 (Daniel Rogers) 的信件，为罗森克兰茨 (Rosencrantz) 和吉尔登斯特恩 (Guildenstern) 的名字提供了一条可能的传播途径。这是一部引人入胜的档案侦探作品，涉及法国、德国和英国的资料，它几乎是偶然提供的，作为关于“外交、大使馆、旅行和信件”在该剧中的核心地位的更大观点的证据（ 132)。这样的时刻几乎就像魔术一样，书中充满了它们。然而，哈姆雷特时刻的后半部分可能会产生最大的影响。Kiséry 提供了对 16 世纪和 17 世纪及以后公众如何以及为何发展的新理解。他这样做不是通过调整哈贝马斯 18 世纪的时间线，而是通过布迪厄要求我们 和信件”（132）。这样的时刻几乎就像魔术一样，书中充满了它们。然而，哈姆雷特时刻的后半部分可能会产生最大的影响。Kiséry 提供了对 16 世纪和 17 世纪及以后公众如何以及为何发展的新理解。他这样做不是通过调整哈贝马斯 18 世纪的时间线，而是通过布迪厄要求我们 和信件”（132）。这样的时刻几乎就像魔术一样，书中充满了它们。然而，哈姆雷特时刻的后半部分可能会产生最大的影响。Kiséry 提供了对 16 世纪和 17 世纪及以后公众如何以及为何发展的新理解。他这样做不是通过调整哈贝马斯 18 世纪的时间线，而是通过布迪厄要求我们