sophisticated. For Wall-Randell, Prospero’s book signifies in terms of space more than by the power of its magical content. She provides numerous examples of “‘kinetic’ effect[s]” (89) by which the small engulfs the large. An encyclopedic book can contain a universe; a single mind can similarly contain infinite ideas. This sense of the book as a container inheres in how the word “volume” meant “book” until about 1621, when it also came to mean “space” (83). As Wall-Randell notes, early modern memory theaters constructed the mind as a place quite specifically, imagining the spatiality of thought. For Wall-Randell, the book is an external version of Prospero’s mind; when he drowns his book, his mind becomes closed to the audience. This reimagining of space as “plastic, malleable, unlimited” (104) appears throughout the play. Played by a human-sized actor, Ariel joyfully anticipates lying in a “‘Cowslips bell’” (91). Influenced by the “‘cartographic revolution’” (98), references to sites such as Bermoothes play with ideas of space and place more than signifying an actual New World location. These kinetic effects work toward accounting for the unusual sense of wonder that this play evokes in me and in so many others. In the final chapter, Wall-Randell argues convincingly that in presenting characters who encounter themselves in their texts, Cervantes’s Don Quixote and Wroth’s Urania “invite us, as readers, to consider the permeable boundary between book and self ” (106). Wall-Randell relates the overheard narrative (in reality an unauthorized part 2 of the romance) that Don Quixote refuses to follow to the Book of Life, which was thought to plot the lives of all mortals. In Wroth’s Urania, Urania and Veralinda read the almost identical narratives of their lives in a magic book. The significance of Urania’s narrative is not in its information, which concerns events that have already happened, but in its ability to enable her to “stand apart from herself and regard herself,” to see her life as “strange and new” (128). One can argue that this process of gaining a new perspective on one’s own life is potentially transformative for all readers of romance and fiction in general. Playgoers read romances, and romance-readers went to plays. In addition to the restoration of an early modern sense of wonder to books, and to the readings of specific and mystifying scenes involving books, The Immaterial Book deserves praise for its engagement of romance genres beyond Shakespeare’s plays. This engagement involves wide reading in diverse bodies of criticism. But it is important to undertake if we are to understand the early modern cultural world, as Wall-Randell has so learnedly and so gracefully demonstrated.

中文翻译：

---

莎士比亚与英国戏剧的演绎，1561-1642 年，玛丽娜·塔林斯卡娅着

复杂的。对于 Wall-Randell 来说，Prospero 的书在空间方面的意义大于其神奇内容的力量。她提供了许多“'动力'效应[s]”（89）的例子，通过这些例子，小的吞噬了大的。一本百科全书可以包含一个宇宙；一个头脑同样可以包含无限的想法。书作为容器的这种感觉一直存在于“卷”这个词的含义中，直到大约 1621 年，当它也开始表示“空间”时 (83)。正如 Wall-Randell 所指出的，早期的现代记忆剧场将心灵构建为一个非常具体的地方，想象思想的空间性。对于 Wall-Randell 来说，这本书是 Prospero 思想的外在版本；当他淹没他的书时，他的思想对观众关闭了。这种将空间重新想象为“可塑性、可塑性、无限”（104）的现象贯穿全剧。由人类大小的演员扮演，Ariel 高兴地期待躺在“'Cowslips bell'”（91）中。受“制图革命”(98) 的影响，对 Bermoothes 等地点的引用与空间和地点的概念无关，而不仅仅是表示实际的新世界位置。这些动力学效应有助于解释这部剧在我和其他许多人中唤起的不寻常的惊奇感。在最后一章中，沃尔-兰德尔令人信服地论证说，塞万提斯的《唐吉诃德》和沃思的《乌拉尼亚》在呈现在他们的文本中遇到自己的人物时“邀请我们作为读者考虑书本与自我之间的可渗透边界”（106）。沃尔兰德尔讲述了唐吉诃德拒绝跟随生命之书的无意中听到的叙述（实际上是浪漫的未经授权的第 2 部分），这被认为是在策划所有凡人的生活。在 Wroth 的 Urania 中，Urania 和 Veralinda 在一本魔法书中读到了几乎相同的生活故事。Urania 叙事的意义不在于它的信息，它涉及已经发生的事件，而在于它能够让她“独立于自己并看待自己”，将她的生活视为“陌生而新鲜”（128） . 可以争辩说，这种获得对自己生活的新视角的过程对于所有浪漫和小说的读者来说具有潜在的变革性。爱玩的人看言情，爱看的人去看话剧。除了恢复早期现代对书籍的惊奇感，以及对涉及书籍的特定和神秘场景的阅读之外，《无形之书》因其对莎士比亚戏剧之外的浪漫类型的参与而值得称赞。这种参与涉及广泛阅读各种批评。但是，如果我们要了解早期现代文化世界，就很重要，正如 Wall-Randell 如此博学而优雅地展示的那样。