world in a new theatrical ecology. Touching lightly on plays as disparate as Macbeth, King Lear, As You Like It, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Lupton reveals the centrality both of hospitality to their fabric and of theatricality as the modality of hospitality’s operation. Richard Preiss, writing on “interiority,” makes a fiendishly ingenious case, based partly on a reading of The Spanish Tragedy, that the emergence of paying theater prompted the development of a concept of interiority and secrets because the paying of admission fees created an expectation of a return that the plays themselves never could quite deliver, hence creating the desire for something beyond what could be directly seen and heard. Riffing on the antitheatrical accusation that the theater is an empty, parasitic institution, Preiss turns that accusation on its head, arguing that the desire created by absence at the heart of commercial theater was productive of one of its most compelling illusions. The book contains many more equally provocative pieces. What is not in this collection? Surprisingly, there is very little on what I would call the site-specific materials of theatrical performance. None of the wonderful new work on particular theater companies is represented in this volume, nor is there much on the architecture and social environs of particular playhouses (apart from Laura Weigert’s suggestive essay on what we can and can’t learn primarily about medieval French stages from woodcuts and other pictorial evidence) or on props and costumes. The book tilts toward the theoretical uptake of concepts rather than toward a concrete reckoning with the physical milieu and technical affordances through which early modern theatricality manifested itself. If theatricality as a concept invites work on the ontology and phenomenology of theater and performance, all of that depends on specific assemblages of persons, spaces, and technologies, none of which can be elided for the full apprehension of theatricality’s manifestations. But like Lopez’s book, Turner’s collection pushes the boundaries of our thinking in exciting new directions, pointing toward a resurgence in the study of theatricality in all its modalities. Both books augur well for the continuing vitality of our field.

中文翻译：

---

在室内移动莎士比亚：詹姆斯一世剧场版的表演和曲目。作者：安德鲁·古尔、法拉·卡里姆-库珀和：詹姆士一世公司及其剧场：红牛剧院的女王仆从（约 1605–1619 年），伊娃·格里菲斯着

新戏剧生态中的世界。Lupton 轻描淡写地讲述了《麦克白》、《李尔王》、《如你所愿》和《仲夏夜之梦》等截然不同的戏剧，揭示了热情好客在其结构中的中心地位，以及作为热情好客运作方式的戏剧性。理查德·普莱斯（Richard Preiss）在撰写“内部性”时提出了一个非常巧妙的案例，部分基于对西班牙悲剧的阅读，即付费剧院的出现促进了内部和秘密概念的发展，因为支付入场费创造了一种期望戏剧本身永远无法完全实现的回报，因此产生了对超出直接可见和听到的东西的渴望。普莱斯对剧院是一个空荡荡的寄生机构的反戏剧指控嗤之以鼻，将这一指控置之不理，认为商业剧院核心的缺席所产生的欲望产生了其最引人注目的幻觉之一。这本书包含更多同样具有煽动性的作品。这个集合中没有什么？令人惊讶的是，关于我称之为特定地点的戏剧表演材料的内容很少。本书中没有任何关于特定剧院公司的精彩新作品，也没有太多关于特定剧院的建筑和社会环境（除了劳拉·魏格特（Laura Weigert）关于我们可以和不能主要了解中世纪法国舞台的建议性文章来自木刻和其他图画证据）或在道具和服装上。这本书倾向于对概念的理论理解，而不是对早期现代戏剧性表现出来的物理环境和技术可供性的具体考虑。如果作为一个概念的戏剧性需要对戏剧和表演的本体论和现象学进行研究，那么所有这一切都取决于特定的人、空间和技术的组合，为了充分理解戏剧性的表现形式，这些都不能被忽略。但就像洛佩兹的书一样，特纳的作品集将我们的思维界限推向了令人兴奋的新方向，指向所有形式的戏剧研究的复兴。这两本书都预示着我们领域的持续活力。如果作为一个概念的戏剧性需要对戏剧和表演的本体论和现象学进行研究，那么所有这一切都取决于特定的人、空间和技术的组合，为了充分理解戏剧性的表现形式，这些都不能被忽略。但就像洛佩兹的书一样，特纳的作品集将我们的思维界限推向了令人兴奋的新方向，指向所有形式的戏剧研究的复兴。这两本书都预示着我们领域的持续活力。如果作为一个概念的戏剧性需要对戏剧和表演的本体论和现象学进行研究，那么所有这一切都取决于特定的人、空间和技术的组合，为了充分理解戏剧性的表现形式，这些都不能被忽略。但就像洛佩兹的书一样，特纳的作品集将我们的思维界限推向了令人兴奋的新方向，指向所有形式的戏剧研究的复兴。这两本书都预示着我们领域的持续活力。指向所有形式的戏剧性研究的复兴。这两本书都预示着我们领域的持续活力。指向所有形式的戏剧性研究的复兴。这两本书都预示着我们领域的持续活力。